Jump to content

GPM Celebrates Ten Years of Observing Precipitation for Science and Society


Recommended Posts

  • Publishers
Posted
Feature Article header

40 min read

GPM Celebrates Ten Years of Observing Precipitation for Science and Society

Introduction

On February 27, 2014, the four-ton Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) Core Observatory (CO) spacecraft launched aboard a Japanese H-IIA rocket from Tanegashima Space Center in southern Japan. On that day, the GPM mission, a joint Earth-observing mission between NASA and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), began its journey to provide the world with an unprecedented picture of global precipitation (i.e., rain and snow). GPM continues to observe important precipitation characteristics and gain physical insights into precipitation processes using an advanced radar and passive microwave (PMW) radiometer on the GPM–CO along with leveraging a constellation of satellites. (The Earth Observer reported on the GPM–CO launch and plans for the mission in its November–December 2013 issue – see GPM Core Observatory: Advancing Precipitation Instruments and Expanding Coverage.)

As GPM is now well into its 10th year in orbit, the time is fitting to reflect on and celebrate what this mission has accomplished and showcase its contributions to science and society. While occasionally dealing with equipment malfunction, the GPM–CO has operated nearly continuously over its lifetime and recently was put into a higher orbit to conserve station-keeping fuel. As a result, GPM remains in extended operations and continues its observations after 10 years, making significant advances in the precipitation field through improving sensor calibration, retrieval algorithms, and ground validation measurements. GPM data continues to further our understanding of the characteristics of liquid and frozen precipitation around the world and improving our scientific knowledge of Earth’s water and energy cycles. These advances have extended to numerous societal benefits related to operational weather prediction, situational awareness and prediction of extreme events, hydrological and climate model development, water resource and crop management activities, and public health alerts. Additionally, this information has informed the K–12 and post-secondary audiences, influencing the next generation of scientists. More information is available at NASA’s GPM website.

Advancing Precipitation Measurements: The Need for the GPM Mission

Precipitation is a vital component of global water and energy cycles and crucially impactful to life on Earth. The distribution, frequency, and extremes in precipitation affect everything from agriculture to the insurance industry, to travel and your weekend plans. Prior to the meteorological satellite era, precipitation observations were limited to populated areas leaving wide swaths of land and almost the entirety of the oceans (70% of Earth’s surface) unobserved. GPM builds on decades of advances in satellite precipitation observations.

Early precipitation observations from space (e.g., from the Nimbus series) used visible and infrared measurements that gave the first, approximate estimates. PMW radiometers, however, gave a next generation of more direct and improved precipitation measurement. The NASA–JAXA Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM), launched in November 1997, significantly advanced the field with the addition of a Precipitation Radar (PR) alongside a wider-swath PMW radiometer. This was groundbreaking for precipitation research and advancement of measurement techniques, but was limited to the tropics and a single satellite in low Earth orbit. To move toward the goal of a globally distributed, high-frequency, physically consistent satellite precipitation product a new mission design was conceived in GPM.

The GPM Mission: Science Requirements, Objectives, and Instruments

The GPM–CO spacecraft is an advanced successor to the TRMM spacecraft, providing additional channels on both the Dual-frequency Precipitation Radar (DPR) and the GPM Microwave Imager (GMI) to enhance capabilities to sense light rain and falling snow. The GPM–CO, another NASA–JAXA partnership, operates in an inclined, non-Sun synchronous orbit that allows the spacecraft to sample precipitation across all hours of the day, as did TRMM. However, TRMM only covered tropical and subtropical regions, while the GPM–CO also covers middle and sub-polar latitudes.

The GPM mission has several key scientific objectives, including:

  1. advancing precipitation measurements from space;
  2. improving our knowledge of precipitation systems, water cycle variability, and freshwater availability;
  3. improving climate modeling and prediction;
  4. improving weather forecasting and four-dimensional [4D – i.e., three-dimensional (3D) spatial plus temporal] reanalysis; and
  5. improving hydrological modeling and prediction.

GPM Core Observatory Instruments

The GMI and DPR instruments together provide a powerful synergistic tool to assess precipitation structure, intensity, and phase globally at relatively high (regional) spatial resolutions. The DPR’s Ku-band (13.6 GHz) and Ka-band (35.5 GHz) channels provide 3D retrievals of precipitation structure with a vertical resolution of 250 m (~820 ft) and a horizontal resolution of ~5 km (~3 mi) across a swath up to 245 km (152 mi). The GMI is a 13-channel conically scanning PMW radiometer providing observations across a wide swath [885 km (~550 mi)] to estimate precipitation estimates at resolutions as fine as 5 km – see Figure 1.

When scientists and engineers collaborated on the design of GMI, they knew it would need to meet exacting requirements so that its data could be used both to support development of precipitation retrieval algorithms and to provide a calibration standard for the partner sensors in the GPM constellation. The attention to detail has paid off. To this day, GMI is deemed to be one of the best calibrated conically scanning PMW radiometers in space.

Together, these two well-calibrated GPM–CO instruments gather scientifically advanced observations of precipitation between 68°N and 68°S – which covers where the majority of the Earth’s population falls. This coverage allows opportunities to observe both surface precipitation rates and 3D precipitation structure and allows observations of diverse weather systems, including hurricanes and typhoons (e.g., from formation to their transition from the tropics to midlatitudes), severe convection, falling snow, light rain, and frontal systems over both land and ocean.

GPM Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the GPM Core Observatory’s Dual-frequency Precipitation Radar (DPR) and GPM Microwave Imager (GMI) instruments.
Figure credit: GPM website

GPM Constellation

While the GPM–CO is a key component of the GPM mission, another fundamental component is the constellation of national and international partner satellites known as the GPM Constellation, which has numbers ~10 at any given time – with the current members listed at the link referenced above. Each GPM Constellation partner designed and operated the satellites for their own particular missions, but they agreed to share the data from their missions to enable the next-generation of unified global precipitation estimates. The combination of these partner satellites and the GPM–CO allow frequent intersections of their orbits, permitting colocated and cotemporal observations to be made, which are crucial to ensure effective intercalibration.

The GPM–CO serves as the “calibrator” to unify precipitation estimates across these different partners’ satellite sensors, ensuring that the observed microwave brightness temperatures (TB) are consistent among the sensors with expected differences after accounting for variations in the observing frequencies, bandwidths, polarizations, and view angles. The advanced calibration across the sensors is a remarkable achievement, and it allows the project to focus on the precipitation products rather than TB uncertainties. This careful calibration enables high-quality datasets that support and enable detailed investigations on the distribution of precipitation and how these patterns change over days, seasons, and years, enabling a breadth of science and societal applications at local and global scales.

Ground Validation Activities: Significant Contributions to the GPM Mission

An integral part of a successful satellite mission is a robust and active ground validation (GV) program. During the TRMM era, the TRMM PR, and/or the TRMM PMW radiometer instruments limited GV to simple comparisons of rain rates to surface measurements from radars and/or rain gauges, which is referred to as statistical validation. It soon became obvious that a more robust GV program would be needed to better aid future satellite algorithm developers to improve the physics of their algorithms rather than just justifying tweaking their outputs. As a result, unlike TRMM, GPM’s GV program has been part of the mission concept from its inception. The GPM team developed a three-tiered approach that uses:  statistical validation, as done during TRMM; physical validation, where the emphasis is on better understanding of the physics and microphysics of different precipitating systems; and hydrological validation, which emphasizes improving precipitation retrievals over large-scale areas (e.g., watersheds).

To address these goals, there have been several pre- and post-launch field campaigns conducted. In chronological order, these include the:

Each of these field campaigns were designed to provide insight into different precipitation regimes and types to improve GPM satellite observations. For example, MC3E allowed for comprehensive observations of intense convection over continental regions. The researchers deployed an extensive network of ground instruments (e.g., radars, disdrometers, rain gauges), in coordination with flights of NASA’s ER-2 and University of North Dakota’s Cessna Citation II research aircrafts, to sample varied precipitation types (e.g., severe thunderstorms, Mesoscale Convective Systems (MCS)). Data from MC3E allowed for improvement of both active (DPR) and passive (GMI) retrievals over land. GCPEx has allowed for sampling of snowing systems. During this campaign, NASA’s ER-2 flew high above the clouds in coordination with NASA’s DC-3 aircraft flying within the clouds. Here again, GCPEx participants deployed a vast network of ground instruments (e.g., snow gauges, disdrometers). The goal for GCPEx was to formulate and validate frozen/mixed precipitation retrievals from the GPM satellite. (Note that from 2011–2015, The Earth Observer published articles on five of the six GV campaigns described in this section; the reader can locate these articles on The Earth Observer Archives Page. Scroll down to the “Bibliography of Articles with Historical Context Published in The Earth Observer” listicle and look for Field Campaigns.)

While these large-scale campaigns were extremely beneficial for achieving GPM science objectives, the costs of deploying instruments and personnel in these remote regions can be substantial. In order to provide long-term measurements at reasonable costs, the GPM GV established the Precipitation Research Facility (PRF) at the Wallops Flight Facility (WFF). The goal of this facility was to provide long-term measurements from the myriad instruments that have been deployed at the various field campaigns and manage them with full-time GV personnel. The linchpin of the PRF is NASA’s S-band, Dual-Polarimetric Radar (NPOL) – see Photo 1. NPOL was deployed in a farm field about 38 km (~24 mi) northeast of WFF to provide areal estimates of surface precipitation as well as profiles of precipitating systems above other GV surface instruments (e.g., profiling radars, disdrometers, and rain gauges). To add to this effort, the PRF staff established a network of rain gauges and disdrometers, which are deployed over the eastern shore of Maryland. These data are telemetered so that an added benefit to this effort is that the GPM GV data provide valuable, near-real-time data to many of the numerous farmers on the Delmarva Peninsula. The PRF’s principal activity is to design new GV instruments, test new validation methods, and assess instrument uncertainties using the abundant infrastructure of the GPM GV validation program. This coordination between GPM GV instruments, WFF-based staff, and regional data collection, quality control, and analysis are the core components of the PRF.

GPM Photo 1
Photo 1. The NASA S-Band Dual Polarimetric Radar (NPOL) deployed in central Iowa in support of the IFloodS field campaign in Iowa during the spring of 2013. The radar, when disassembled, fits within the five, white sea-containers located around the radar in this photo; it can be transported via 18-wheelers. In addition to IFloodS, NPOL has also been deployed for field campaigns in Oklahoma (MC3E), North Carolina (IPHEx), and Washington (OLYMPEX) – all of which are mentioned in the text above.
Photo credit: David Wolff/WFF

GPM Data Products

GPM data products and services have played an important role in research, applications, and education. The Precipitation Processing System (PPS) housed at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) produces and distributes GPM products that are archived and distributed at the Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES DISC) as well.

GES DISC is one of a dozen discipline-oriented Distributed Active Archive Centers (DAACs) that NASA operates for processing the terabytes of data returns from its satellites, aircraft, field campaigns, and other sources. (To learn more about Earth Science Data Operations, which includes the DAACs, see Earth Science Data Operations: Acquiring, Distributing, and Delivering NASA Data for the Benefit of Society. The Earth Observer, Mar–Apr 2017, 29:2, 4–18.  A chart listing all the DAACs appears on pp. 7–8 of this article.)

In addition to precipitation estimates, users can access variables, such as calibrated TB, radar reflectivity, latent heating, and hydrometeor profiles in GPM products. See the Table 1 below for a listing of NASA GPM data products. 

Table 1. Overview of GPM data collection.

Product Level Products and Description
Level 1 (L1)1 1A – Reconstructed, unprocessed instrument data at full resolution for GPM GMI; TRMM TMI 1B – Brightness temperatures (Tb) for GPM GMI; and TRMM TMI, PR, and VIRS1C – Calibrated Tb for GPM GMI, TRMM TMI, and a constellation of PMW radiometers.
Level 2 (L2)2 2A Radar – Single-orbit radar rainfall estimates for GPM DPR, Ka, Ku; TRMM PR2A Radiometer (GPROF & PRPS) – Single-orbit PMW rainfall estimates from GPM GMI, TRMM TMI, and constellation radiometers; 2B Combined – Single-orbit rainfall estimates from combined radar/radiometer data (e.g., GPM GMI & DPR; and TRMM TMI & PR); and 2H CSH – Single-orbit cloud (latent) heating estimates from combined radar/radiometer data (GPM GMI & DPR, TRMM TMI & PR).
Level 3 (L3)3 IMERG Early Run – Near real-time, low-latency gridded global multi-satellite precipitation estimates; IMERG Late Run – Near real-time, gridded global multi-satellite precipitation estimates with quasi-Lagrangian time interpolation; and IMERG Final Run – Research-quality, gridded global multisatellite precipitation estimates with quasi-Lagrangian time interpolation, gauge data, and climatological adjustment. 3A Radar – Gridded rainfall estimates from radar data (GPM DPR, TRMM PR). 3A Radiometer (GPROF) – Gridded rainfall estimates from GPM GMI, TRMM TMI, and constellation PMW radiometers; 3B Combined – Gridded rainfall estimates from combined radar/radiometer data (GPM GMI & DPR, TRMM TMI & PR); 3G CSH – Gridded cloud (latent) heating estimates from combined radar/radiometer data (GPM GMI & DPR, TRMM TMI & PR).
Product Definitions: 1 Level 1 (L1): L1A data are reconstructed, unprocessed instrument data at full resolution, time referenced, and annotated with ancillary information, including radiometric and geometric calibration coefficients and georeferencing parameters (i.e., platform ephemeris), computed and appended – but not applied, to Level-0 (L0) data; L1B data are radiometrically corrected and geolocated L1A data that have been processed to sensor units; and L1C data are common intercalibrated brightness temperature (Tb) products that use the GPM Microwave Imager (GMI) L1B data as a reference standard. 2Level 2 (L2) products are derived geophysical parameters at the same resolution and location as those of the L1 data. 3Level 3 (L3) products are geophysical parameters that have been spatially and/or temporally resampled from L1 or L2 data.
Black Separator Line

List of acronyms used in Table (in order of occurrence): GPM Microwave Imager (GMI); TRMM Microwave Imager (MI); TRMM Precipitation Radar (PR); Visible and Infrared Scanner (VIRS); Dual-frequency Precipitation Radar (DPR); Ku-band and Ka-band channels; GPM Profiling Algorithm (GPROF); Precipitation Retrieval and Profiling Scheme Algorithm (PRPS); Integrated Multi-satellitE Retrievals for GPM (IMERG); Goddard Convective-Stratiform (CSH) (Latent) Heating Algorithm.

Black Separator Line

Detailed information of each product and links for data access and visualizations are available on NASA GPM Data Directory.

From the beginning, GPM was conceptualized as incorporating all available satellite data – not as a single-satellite mission. One of the key mission requirements of the PPS was to ensure that processing and reprocessing always include data from the TRMM era (starting in December 1997). Algorithm development would ensure that the same algorithm would be used to process both TRMM- and GPM-era data collected from the TRMM and GPM spacecrafts and the GPM constellation. As a result, an important part of this cross-mission processing is the intercalibration of PMW radiometers using GMI. Using data from the overlap period of GMI and TMI, TMI is intercalibrated to GMI and is then used to intercalibrate the radiometer data during the TRMM era. This intercalibration manifests itself in the intercalibrated brightness temperatures (Tc) provided in the Level 1C (L1C) product for each radiometer. The GPM Profiling Algorithm (GPROF) retrieval uses these intercalibrated L1C products and guarantees consistent mission intercalibrated precipitation retrievals. For example, the L2 product stage that converts TB into precipitation estimates applies the same GPROF to the GPM constellation of PMW radiometers.

Continued Improvement of GPM Algorithms

One important achievement of GPM is the continued improvements in GPM’s algorithms that produce the immense amount of precipitation data that are used by scientific researchers and stakeholders alike. GPM’s five algorithms – DPR-, GPROF-, Combined-, Convective-Stratiform Heating-, and Multisatellite – have all undergone version updates several times (e.g., Version 01–07), with additional updates planned for the next 1–4 years. Each update entails a tremendous amount of work behind the scenes from GPM’s algorithm developers to ensure that quality data are available to the public.

Each new version provides a complete reprocessing of the entire data record using the improved retrieval algorithms, based on validation against reliable GV data, feedback from users, new understanding of the processes, and improved techniques. This not only helps ensure a consistent data record and fair comparisons against past events but also helps refine and improve the data to capture precipitation phenomena more exactly. Just as an original photograph capturing a past event can be reanalyzed with new technology, reprocessing revisits the observed satellite instruments’ “raw” radiances and refines the process of converting them to the end product of precipitation quantities.

“We know more now about the global rain and snowfall in, say, 2010, than we did when it actually happened.” – George Huffman [GPM Project Scientist]

This process is an inverse problem that helps determine the physical quantities (e.g., precipitation rate) given the observed signal (e.g., microwave radiance). For precipitation, this retrieval process relies on complex algorithms and is by no means straightforward. This is an underconstrained problem where different combinations of physical quantities can give the same observed signal, especially for passive instruments. Thus it requires additional information or assumptions.

The aim of each version in GPM is to have “better” estimates of the precipitation variables than the previous version. However, what better means can involve trade-offs. An excellent example is a change implemented from V06 to V07 in one of GPM’s most widely-used products – the Integrated Multi-satellitE Retrievals for GPM (IMERG) algorithm – which is NASA GPM’s multisatellite product that combines information from the GPM satellite constellation to estimate precipitation over the majority of the Earth’s surface. The resulting IMERG products provide near-global precipitation data at a resolution of 10 km (~6mi), every 30 minutes covering latitudes of 60°N–60°S, and are available at different latencies (Early, Late, and Final, as defined in Table 1) to cater to a range of end-user communities for operational and research applications. IMERG is particularly valuable over areas of Earth’s surface that lack ground-based, precipitation-measuring instruments, including oceans and remote areas. Specifically, this change to IMERG V07 resulted in improvements towards the distribution of precipitation rates, allowing for a better representation of precipitation areas and extremes. However, it reduced correlation against ground reference data. Another example is the gauge adjustment process in IMERG that offers a substantial improvement at the expense of higher random error.

The result of these intricate reprocessing cycles is a family of precipitation products that improves accuracy, a longer record, and expanding coverage, all while responding to feedback and requests from users. This is especially the case for downstream products like IMERG, which is widely used for science and applications due to its completeness and regularity, and inherits the improvements in each reprocessing cycle across the family.

Meeting User Needs

The number one requirement on PPS was to provide well-curated standard reference products with carefully curated provenience. For each data product version, a complete record is kept of spacecraft maneuvers and issues, data input issues, and data formats. This makes GPM data products a standard against which others can be compared and the standard products themselves improved.

The GPM mission also requires near-real-time (NRT) products. As a research agency, NASA does not generally specify operational NRT requirements. Instead, these NRT products are usually provided on a “best effort” basis. During its core mission (the first three years), PPS did have NRT requirements. Since then, PPS continues to fulfill these as budget permits. The half-hourly 0.1 x 0.1º L3 global IMERG products are provided in NRT with latency objectives for the IMERG Early (Late) run of 4+ (14+) hours after data collection.

To facilitate data interoperability and interdisciplinary science, the PPS and the Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES DISC) have developed value-added data services and products since the TRMM era, including data subsetting (spatial and temporal), L3 data regridding, network common data form (NetCDF) format conversion, remote data access (e.g., via Open Data Access Protocol (OPeNDAP), Grid Analysis and Display System (GrADS) Data Server [GDS]), NASA GIS translation of GPM data for various accumulation periods, GPM Applications Programming Interface (API), and data visualization tools. For example, the more technical Hierarchical Data Formats (HDF) mission IMERG products are reformatted and accumulated to GIS-friendly additions in Geographic Tagged Image File Format (geoTIFF) format for both Early and Late Run IMERG products at 30-min, 3-hour, and 1-day temporal resolution. Other value-added products include the daily products for IMERG Early, Late, and Final Runs from GES DISC. Quick visualization tools, such as the IMERG Global Viewer, are freely available to the public to access and view the latest NRT GPM IMERG global precipitation datasets at 30-minute, 1-day, and 7-day intervals, on an interactive 3D globe in a web browser. User services and tutorials (e.g., Frequently Asked Questions, How-Tos, help desk, user forum) are also available across the GPM, PPS, and GES DISC webpages.

Along with the other DAACs, GES DISC is facilitating data access and use by migrating its products and services to NASA’s Earthdata cloud. Once the migration is finished, users will be able to access all NASA’s Earth data products from the 12 DAACs in one place, which can simplify interdisciplinary science studies. Over 50% of the archived GES DISC products have been migrated to the cloud as of this writing. Users can either access them directly in the NASA Earthdata cloud environment or download data in their own computing environment. 

To broaden the GPM user community – especially for users who are either non-technical or not familiar with NASA data – GES DISC has developed an online interactive tool called Giovanni, for viewing, analyzing, and downloading multiple Earth science datasets (including GPM) from within a web browser, allowing users to circumvent downloading data and software. At present, GPM L3 precipitation products (IMERG) along with over 2000 interdisciplinary variables from other NASA missions or projects are available in Giovanni. Over 20 plot types are included in Giovanni to facilitate data exploration, product comparison, and research. Links to results and data can be shared with colleagues. Data in different formats (e.g., NetCDF, comma separated values, or CSV) can be downloaded as well. A list of referral papers utilizing Giovanni is available. 

Data services continue to evolve to meet increasing user requirements, such as the Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR) guiding principles, open science, data integration, interdisciplinary science, and data democratization.

Science and Societal Application Highlights from 10 Years of Observing Precipitation with GPM

As scientists and stakeholder organizations have made use of GPM datasets for analysis and research over the past decade, myriad scientific discoveries have been made leading to the emergence of a wide variety of real-time and retrospective societal applications for GPM data. These GPM user communities continue to dig into scientific questions and provide time-critical decision support to the public. This portion of the article highlights several of the scientific and application achievements made possible since the mission launched in 2014. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather demonstrates GPM’s unique accomplishments and what the mission offers for science and society.

Capturing Microphysical Properties and Vertical Structure Information of Precipitating Systems

GPM Figure 2
Figure 2. Seasonal average cloud latent heating at a height of 6 km (~4 mi) derived from GSFC’s Goddard Convective–Stratiform (Latent) Heating Algorithm (CSH) algorithm for the period December 2020–November 2023. Heating arises from cloud and precipitation processes making its spatial distribution highly correlated with precipitation. CSH shows deep, intense cloud heating in the tropics within the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), west Pacific Ocean, and tropical land masses. Broad areas of heating at higher latitudes are associated with midlatitude storm tracks. Seasonal shifts in heating are most prominent over land.
Image credit: Steven Lang /GSFC/Science Systems and Applications, Inc. (SSAI)

One of GPM’s main charges was to provide microphysical properties and vertical structure information of precipitating systems using passive and active remote sensing techniques. Measurements of the vertical structure of clouds are fundamentally important to improving our understanding of how they affect both local- and large-scale environments. Achieving this goal has required considerable enhancement of the NASA GPM algorithms – including the DPR, GPROF, Combined (CMB), and Convective–Stratiform (Latent) Heating (CSH) algorithms – from their original capabilities at the time of launch.

The advanced instrumentation of GPM’s dual-frequency, Ku/Ka-band radar added new capabilities beyond the TRMM PR’s single Ku band. As a result, the DPR algorithms provide vertical hydrometeor profiles at the radar range bin level [~5 km (~3 mi) horizontal, 125 m (~410 ft) vertical]. Such detailed measurements are critical for classifying precipitation events (e.g., convective or stratiform) and characterizing the dominant types of precipitation particles, precipitation characteristics, and freezing level height. Additionally, these DPR algorithms have played a significant role in retrieving parameters of the particle size distribution (PSD) in rain. All of these factors help support and elucidate the understanding of storm systems and their impacts at local and regional scales.

More recently falling snow microphysics have received increasing attention. Characterizing snow remains a challenging problem for precipitation measuring/modeling due to varying particle habits, shapes, and snow mass densities. The higher frequencies added on both the DPR and GMI instruments have enabled improved observations of ice and snow, not only revealing new insights into the intensity and microphysical composition of cold-season precipitation but enabling an increased understanding of precipitation, clouds, and climate feedbacks.

Another important parameter that is derived from GPM vertical profile information is latent heating (LH), which is so named because it measures the “hidden” energy when water changes phase but doesn’t impact its temperature. The vertical structure of LH is a key parameter for understanding the coupling of the Earth’s water and energy cycles. Although it cannot be directly observed, GPM-derived precipitation estimates, microphysical properties, and vertical structure provide critical information for inferring the vertical structure of LH – see Figure 2. Researchers can access this information using the U.S. Science Team’s CSH datasets as well as the Japanese Science Team’s Spectral Latent Heating (LSH) datasets. GPM’s sampling of higher latitudes – not available from TRMM ­– has resulted in estimates of the intensity and variability of 3D LH structures of precipitation systems beyond the tropics. The CSH algorithm has advanced during the GPM era due to improvements in numerical cloud models and higher accuracy vertical precipitation structure profiles.

Improve knowledge of Precipitation Systems, Water Cycle Variability, and Freshwater Availability

A key success of GPM – both from information from the GPM–CO and from combining with the information from the constellation satellites – is the expansion of knowledge of precipitation systems both in the tropics and at middle and high latitudes. In addition, the program contributes to water availability and variations in time and space. The radar and PMW instruments on the GPM–CO lead to the most accurate surface precipitation rate estimates and vertical structure of the systems, allowing researchers to study key features of these systems on an instantaneous basis and then compile precipitation statistics over time for accurate climatological determinations. The inclined orbit of the GPM–CO results in sampling the entire diurnal (day–night) cycle of precipitation, which is key information for validating numerical models. By combining the “best estimate” data from the GPM–CO with more frequent precipitation estimates from GPM constellation satellites results in the IMERG analyses (30-min resolution), which has allowed for the examination of fine-scale variations in all types of systems, the application of the IMERG NRT analyses for monitoring precipitation systems, and the use in a multitude of applications  (e.g., hydrology, agriculture, and health) that depend on fresh water availability information.

In the tropics, the GPM–CO data have been combined with similar data from TRMM for a 25-year total observational record to study the rainfall structure and variations of tropical cyclones, the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), and the mean rainfall climate of the tropics. Tropical mesoscale systems have been tracked with the 30-minute IMERG data to understand their life cycles and contributions to climatological rainfall. Tropical cyclone precipitation has been analyzed to understand storm initiation and variations with time over various ocean basins. Hailstorms have been studied with specifically developed hail algorithms over various continents, with particular focus on the extremely intense storms over South America.

In midlatitudes, the structure of large-scale cyclonic systems, including atmospheric rivers (ARs), have been examined, as well as their relation to moisture source regions and impact in driving heavy precipitation events. At higher latitudes, GPM’s focus on better precipitation retrievals – especially related to snow detection and estimation – has led to improved knowledge of storm systems in this important, changing environment.

Looking across the globe, extreme precipitation events – often with accompanying flood and landslide events – have also been examined and cataloged, both on a local and regional basis, but with increasing ability on a quasi-global basis as the time record extends forward.

On longer timescales, the GPM–CO (and TRMM) data have contributed to our knowledge and estimates of mean climatological precipitation providing different estimates (from different products) for intercomparison and through “best estimate” ocean climatological values using combined radar data and passive microwave information from GPM, TRMM, and CloudSat. This best estimate is used to calibrate a new, long-term Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) monthly analysis (1983–present), which has resulted in a refined estimate of the mean ocean climatological value, that fits global water and energy budget studies better – see Figure 3. The GPM IMERG analyses are also now used as a key input to the GPCP global daily analyses, enabling finer-resolution climatological studies.

GPM Figure 3
Figure 3. Example of Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) Daily Climate Data Record (CDR) for January 28, 2018. GPCP incorporates GPM–CO and IMERG information to produce maps like the one shown here.
Image credit: Bob Adler/University of Maryland, College Park, Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center (ESSIC)]

GPM Precipitation Estimates Improving Climate Models and Constraining Predictions

The multifaceted, multiscale physical processes that affect precipitation locally and globally continue to be a challenge for climate models to accurately represent. Ongoing research and analysis reveals that the process-level representation is a much stronger constraint on climate model prediction fidelity than mean state climatological skill. Though high-quality climate models, such as the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), are currently not run at the resolution of GPM observations, they are increasingly simulating cloud and thunderstorm-scale rainfall as subcomponents within their lower-resolution grid boxes. This allows for the model-simulated rain intensity over thunderstorm areas to be compared with GPM precipitation estimates that are averaged over the equivalent GPM DPR-identified convective cloud types. This evaluation inevitably involves assessing extremes, and with 10 years and counting of GPM data now avaiable, such extremes in different weather regimes will be increasingly useful to study – see Figure 4.

GPM Figure 4
Figure 4. Average rainfall patterns from 2014–2020 in January using the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies’ (GISS) – E3 climate model [top] and precipitation estimates derived from GPM’s multisatellite product, IMERG [bottom]. Climate models such as the GISS-E3 must accurately simulate seasonal cycles observed by GPM for their predictions to be more reliable. Using the GPM rainfall magnitudes as benchmarks, new model equations are being developed to improve this area of rainfall simulation and improve climate projections.
Image credit: Greg Elsaesser/GISS

Additionally, the diurnal cycle of precipitation – another challenge for climate models to simulate – remains an important focus. Recent studies have suggested that the systematic differences in cloud occurrence across the diurnal cycle are crucially important for atmospheric water vapor changes as well as cloud feedbacks and their role in climate change. This expanded understanding provides even more motivation for improving diurnal cycle representation in models. With the long GPM record, diurnal precipitation composites can be made in varying weather or climate states (e.g., El Niño/Southern Oscillation), and additional novel analyses of regime-dependent diurnal cycle composites will be important for constraining processes.

GPM Figure 5
Figure 5. Schematic of GPM observed latent heating in convective cores (i.e., thunderstorms) relative to a larger thunderstorm complex (i.e., mesoscale convective system).
Image credit: Greg Elsaesser; model is from a May 2022 paper published in Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres

Availability of and improvements in GPM estimated stratiform rainfall will progressively enable addressing the longstanding deficiencies in simulating mesoscale convective systems – see Figure 5. Alongside use of “process-relevant” precipitation diagnostics, new efforts seek to use machine learning techniques to ensure that numerous climatological water and energy cycle diagnostics remain in good agreement with GPM and other satellite estimates. These joint efforts that leverage both mean-state global precipitation estimates plus the process-oriented precipitation diagnostics will ensure that coarser-resolution climate models that support numerous CMIP experiments will increase in predictive capability.

GPM Applications: Continuing to Grow and Enable Communities Across Local and Global Scales

As noted above, one GPM focus is the application of satellite precipitation estimates for societal decision-making. As a result, GPM data have supported applications such as weather forecasting, water resource management, agriculture and food security monitoring, public health, animal migration, tropical cyclone location and intensity estimation, hydropower management, flood and landslide monitoring and forecasting, and land system modeling – see Figure 6.

GPM Figure 6
Figure 6. GPM Applications icon highlights six thematic and primary societal application areas supported by GPM data: ecological management, water resources and agriculture, energy, disasters monitoring and response, public health, and weather and climate modeling.
Image credit: GPM website; Mike Marosy/GSFC/Global Science and Technology Inc. (GST)

To support this focus, the GPM Applications team strives to focus on engaging users through trainings and interviews, workshops, webinars, and programs, with the objective of guiding new and existing users to integrate GPM data into their systems and processes to drive actions that positively impact society. These activities help elucidate data needs and identify data barriers faced by stakeholders. The team also helps identify opportunities and gaps to create effective engagement and outreach resources and help facilitate the use of GPM data to support decision making and improve situational awareness across different sectors. All of these efforts have helped increase the visibility of GPM and attract new users from federal and state partners, academic institutions, international agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and private and non-profit companies. A few examples of GPM Application engagement activities since launch include:

  • three GPM Mentorship Programs that bridge the gap between GPM scientists and application communities to promote operational applications;
  • seventeen GPM trainings to support new and existing users on data access and use for applications;
  • six GPM stakeholder-driven application workshops to facilitate discussions between scientists and end users of GPM data about how NASA data could be better leveraged to inform decision making for societal applications; and
  • three white papers that articulate and identify user needs and data requirements across communities.

The GPM Applications team has tabulated over 10,000+ unique users across 130 countries who have accessed or routinely access GPM data from NASA data archives. Additionally, the value of these activities can be seen in over 175 GPM case study application examples that have been publicized at NASA, featured on social media and posted at NASA GPM Applications webpage, over the last 5 years alone – see sampling of applications in Figure 7.

GPM Figure 7
Figure 7. Collage of GPM case study examples enabling societal applications, including weather forecasting, nowcasting of extremes, agricultural and drought monitoring, weather index insurance, and data management platforms.
Image credit: Andrea Portier /GSFC/ SSAI

Over the past decade of GPM observations, several themes have emerged with these efforts across the applications community. One key component of enabling GPM applications is the ability to access and download NRT data products that meet applications needs. About 40% of GPM end users rely on NRT GPM products for time-sensitive applications. Additionally, GPM’s global-gridded IMERG product plays a significant role for applications. It is used nearly 17 times more for research and applications compared to other GPM products, with ~30% of users accessing and downloading IMERG Early and Late NRT data and applying them towards operational uses. As noted earlier, the reprocessing of all TRMM precipitation-era data using the IMERG algorithm ensured a longer, continuous precipitation data record with consistent retrievals that are available from June 2000 to the present. The longer precipitation record has enabled new science research and data applications to benefit society across a diverse range of end-users, helping them to compare and contrast past and present data to support and develop more accurate climate and weather models, understand normal and anomalous extreme precipitation events, and strengthen the baseline information and situational awareness for applications, such as disasters, agriculture and food security, water resources, and energy production. Table 2 presents several broader examples of how these GPM data products are used for societal applications. The subsections that follow demonstrate the value of GPM data to facilitate research and applications even more through case studies.

Table 2. The table includes examples of user communities, by organizational sectors, that highlight how GPM data products are being used for situational awareness and decision-making. Application description includes type of GPM level products. For more information on level product definitions, see NASA Data Product Levels and GPM Data Directory.

User Community Topic Application of GPM Data
Meteorological agencies and organizations Numerical weather prediction Assimilation of Level 1 (L1) PMW TBs for initializing numerical weather prediction model runs to improve weather forecasts
Tropical cyclones Improved characterization of tropical cyclone track and intensity using GPM L1 and L2 products to improve weather forecasts and provide more accurate hurricane warnings
Subseasonal to seasonal and climate modeling Verification and validation of seasonal and climate modeling using L2 LH products and IMERG (Final) to improve understanding and predictability of climate behavior
Data-driven agriculture organizations Agricultural forecasting and food security Integration of IMERG (Early, Late) precipitation estimates within agricultural models to estimate growing season onset and crop productivity
Disaster risk management organizations Flooding Incorporation of IMERG (Early, Late) in hydrologic routing models for flood estimation
Disaster response and recovery Situational awareness of extreme precipitation using IMERG (Early, Late) in potentially affected areas to support disaster response and recovery efforts
Disaster risk management platforms Integration of IMERG (Early, Late, Final) into models to deliver real-time weather insights to customers
Energy infrastructure and management organizations Renewable energy infrastructure and management Assessment of freshwater inputs and quantification of water fluxes using IMERG (Early, Late, Final) as a precipitation data source for hydropower development, production, and flow forecasting
Reinsurance companies Parametric insurance and reinsurance modeling Definition of extreme precipitation thresholds using IMERG (Early, Late, Final) for developing multiperil index-based insurance products and improve situational awareness of rainfall to trigger policy payouts
Water resource management organizations and companies Water resources and drought Evaluation of precipitation anomalies using IMERG (Final) leveraging the extended temporal record, and assessment of freshwater input using IMERG (Early, Late) to basins and reservoirs to better quantify water fluxes
Public health Vector- and water-borne disease monitoring Tracking of precipitation variations using IMERG (Early, Late, Final) with other environmental variables to track and predict vector or water-borne diseases and issue public health alerts

Operational Numerical Weather and Hurricane Prediction

Looking towards the application of GPM L3 products, several agencies [e.g., the U.S. Air Force’s (USAF) Weather Agency (557th Weather Wing), Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology] use IMERG to support reanalysis of NWP models to conduct data assimilation and validation activities and as inputs to numerical models. For example, the USAF ingests IMERG Early into its operational weather forecasts and advisories, supporting global land surface characterization capabilities. This information is then provided routinely to decision-makers across the military, agricultural, and research sectors.

Water Resources, Agricultural Forecasting and Food Security

GMI L1 TB products are operationally assimilated into numerical weather prediction (NWP) models across the globe to improve short- to long-term weather forecast quality (by tuning and developing microphysics and convection parameterizations) and correct the track forecasts for tropical cyclones. Agencies and organizations, such as NASA’s Global Modeling Assimilation Office (GMAO), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Hurricane Center (NHC), Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), and European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) ingest GMI TB data to support their operational systems. For example, the all-sky assimilation of GMI Tb over ice-free ocean surfaces helps improve initial conditions and overall forecast quality to ECMWF’s 24-hour forecasts, increasing not only the number of satellite observations assimilated but also the types of variables analyzed, such as hydrometeors (e.g., liquid cloud, ice cloud, rain, and snow).

GPM’s L2 precipitation and L3 IMERG products are used as input into hydrological and land surface models to better understand the land–atmosphere interactions and better predict and monitor water resources and agricultural output on scales ranging from days to years. For example, IMERG serves as a key component to Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS NET) Land Data Assimilation System hydrology products that are designed to enhance agricultural monitoring in data-sparse regions and support humanitarian response initiatives. IMERG Early products are actively used as a data source for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Foreign Agricultural Service operations where IMERG estimates are routinely evaluated against World Meteorological Organization station data above 50˚N latitude for consensus to produce crop assessments in those regions and support extratropical agrometeorological crop monitoring. In the private sector, companies, such as Nutrien Ag Solutions, use IMERG Early precipitation estimates to capture and evaluate extreme precipitation events. This information is part of Nutrien’s daily delivery of weather content to the company and their clients, where these efforts help the clients prepare for potential disruptions across the global supply chain.

Disaster Response and Insurance

The IMERG spatial and temporal resolution – as well as the availability of the data across more than two decades – has been invaluable for examining precipitation extremes that may result in flooding, landslides, drought, and fires. These data provide key situational awareness for disaster response and recovery. Rainfall information has been developed in Web Map Service (WMS) and ArcGIS formats with Representational State Transfer (REST) endpoints so that they can be pulled into geospatial portals at Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the U.S. Army Geospatial Intelligence Unit and data management platform companies (e.g., CyStellar), and provided to the National Geospatial Agency, the State Department, and insurers. The IMERG product has also been critical to global disaster models, such as the near-global Landslide Hazard Assessment for Situational Awareness (LHASA) system, which uses NRT IMERG rainfall in a decision tree framework that issues a moderate or high landslide nowcast based on rainfall thresholds. The model is routinely updated with a latency of four hours. The LHASA versions are running routinely and used by U.S. agencies and international agencies and organizations, including the World Food Programme.

IMERG data are also being used at multiple reinsurance companies, including the Microinsurance Catastrophe Risk Organisation (MiCRO), to develop drought and rainfall indices using climatology data from IMERG.

Looking Across and Forward for Applications

Common themes that have emerged in stakeholder feedback include the need for continuity of data products, identifying uncertainty estimates, having easily accessible case study examples, and creating public trainings for data access and use. The Applications team works closely with GPM members and leadership to ensure that there are clear and open communication pathways across the GPM mission on engagement activities and to accelerate stakeholder feedback to GPM algorithm developers to aid in the improvement of GPM data products and services for the public. In addition, these insights can be used to formulate a framework for applications related to future mission planning, e.g., NASA’s Earth System Observatory missions.

Bridging the Gap Between Precipitation Measurements and the Public: A View into Outreach Efforts

Several years before the launch of GPM, the Education and Public Outreach (EPO) team was busy in the background, working to bring Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) into the classroom and taking advantage of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) that were being implemented in curriculums across the U.S. The launch of GPM offered a perfect opportunity to showcase and amplify the incredible science and technology behind the GPM mission and the myriad of potential applications that could stem from its data.

Early in the GPM mission’s development, the GPM EPO team curated existing NASA educational resources related to the themes of Earth’s water cycle, weather and climate, technology behind Earth Observing missions, and societal applications. The EPO team created a website, entitled Precipitation Education that has been wildly successful from its launch. The team also developed a Rain EnGAUGE toolkit and engaged both formal and informal educators from around the world to host “Family Science Night” programs and implement some of the interactive activities that the team developed for these events. Thus, even before the launch of GPM, the EPO effort had momentum as team members shared the incredible ways in which NASA’s Earth observation systems were helping us to better understand and protect our home planet.

After launch, the EPO Team worked annually with international teams of “GPM Master Teachers.” This process selected teachers, who participated throughout the school year and received a small stipend for their work. They helped to align the science behind the GPM mission and other NASA Earth observation systems with the Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE) program and developed many lessons and activities that were made available to educators around the globe.

The EPO team also worked with NASA’s Earth to Sky program, training National Park Service and other interpreters to understand the science behind the GPM mission, and to find ways to share this information in meaningful and relevant ways with their audiences across the U.S.

Newer activities have been developed to enable the general public to interact with open science as they follow a very easy “data recipe” to retrieve GPM precipitation observations since 2000 for their location. They are encouraged to use the GLOBE program’s app, GLOBE Observer, and take an observation of either a tree height or clouds. Contributors input the latitude and longitude from that location and find out how much precipitation fell for that location since 2000. This gives the participants the opportunity to collect data from the ground, and then look at satellite data for that same location to better understand the impact of precipitation in their local environment. GLOBE Participants can share their Tree Stories and Water Stories and compare their data with others around the world.

In addition to providing a wide suite of online resources, the GPM Outreach team attends many public events each year, ranging from large NASA-sponsored Earth Day events to local family STEM nights – see Photos 2 and 3. The GPM Outreach team has developed many hands-on activities that help the public explore the varied amounts of precipitation falling in locations around the world. By interacting with these activities and learning how NASA is helping us better understand and protect our home planet, participants walk away with a richer understanding of how NASA’s Earth science programs are improving life around the world.

A decade after the launch of GPM, the “Precipitation Education” website continues to be incredibly popular, with an average of 90,000 visits per month. GPM education and outreach resources are considered the state of the art among practitioners, and the team updates existing and adds new resources as opportunities arise.

GPM Photo 2
Photo 2. Montgomery County’s (Maryland) Georgian Forest Family Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) Night. Shown here is a triptych of parents and children using “Precipitation Towers” to explore precipitation patterns measured by GPM in different locations throughout the world.
Photo credit: Dorian Janney/GSFC/ ADNET Systems Inc. (ADNET)
GPM Photo 3
Photo 3. The GPM Outreach Team engaging the public at Maryland Day 2023, hosted by the University of Maryland (UMD), College Park on Saturday, April 29, 2023. The Team represented GPM at the NASA exhibit where they interacted with hundreds of attendees and highlighted the many benefits of using GPM data for research and societal applications.
Photo credit: Dorian Janney

Conclusion

In more than 10 years of operations, the GPM mission has made incredible contributions in our understanding of global precipitation, from scientific studies to real-world, societal impacts through applications of the data products. With a robust validation program and successive algorithm improvements, our knowledge of precipitation distribution across the globe continues to advance. This has had measurable effects on global modeling and weather forecasting, real-time severe weather monitoring, education, and many other areas. With hardware continuing to function – and a recent fuel-saving orbit boost – GPM continues to add to this valuable data record. The community’s experience with GPM helps illustrate what new observations or combinations of observations will be needed in coming decades to advance precipitation science and maintain needed global monitoring. GPM’s cohort of researchers, instrument specialists, mission operators, and other key personnel across the community are providing the backbone of future mission development efforts.

Black Separator Line

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge several contributing members of the Global Precipitation Measurement Science Team who played a part in writing this anniversary article. They include: Gerald Heymsfield, Dorian Janney, Chris KiddSteven Lang, Zhong Liu, Adrian Loftus, Erich Stocker, and Jackson Tan [all at GSFC]; David Wolff [NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility (WFF)]; Gregory Elsaesser [NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)/ Columbia University]; and Robert Adler [University of Maryland].

Black Separator Line

Andrea Portier
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center/Science Systems and Applications, Inc
andrea.m.portier@nasa.gov  

Sarah Ringerud
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center
sarah.e.ringerud@nasa.gov

George J. Huffman
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center
george.j.huffman@nasa.gov

Share

Details

Last Updated
Oct 03, 2024

Related Terms

View the full article

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Topics

    • By NASA
      On Jan. 19, 1965, Gemini 2 successfully completed the second of two uncrewed test flights of the spacecraft and its Titan II booster, clearing the way for the first crewed mission. The 18-minute suborbital mission achieved the primary goals of flight qualifying the Gemini spacecraft, especially its heat shield during a stressful reentry. Recovery forces retrieved the capsule following its splashdown, allowing engineers to evaluate how its systems fared during the flight. The success of Gemini 2 enabled the first crewed mission to fly two months later, beginning a series of 10 flights over the following 20 months. The astronauts who flew these missions demonstrated the rendezvous and docking techniques necessary to implement the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous method NASA chose for the Moon landing mission. They also proved that astronauts could work outside their spacecraft during spacewalks and that spacecraft and astronauts could function for at least eight days, the minimum time for a roundtrip lunar mission. The Gemini program proved critical to fulfill President John F. Kennedy’s goal of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth before the end of the 1960s. 
      Cutaway diagram of the Gemini spacecraft. Workers at Launch Pad 19 lift Gemini 2 to mate it with its Titan II rocket. At Pad 19, engineers verify the flight simulators inside Gemini 2. Following the success of Gemini 1 in April 1964, NASA had hoped to fly the second mission before the end of the year and the first crewed mission by January 1965. The two stages of the Titan II rocket arrived at Cape Kennedy from the Martin Marietta factory in Baltimore on July 11, and workers erected it on Launch Pad 19 five days later. A lightning strike at the pad on Aug. 17 invalidated all previous testing and required replacement of some pad equipment. A series of three hurricanes in August and September forced workers to partially or totally unstack the vehicle before stacking it for the final time on Sept. 14. The Gemini 2 spacecraft arrived at Cape Kennedy from its builder, the McDonnell Company in St. Louis, on Sept. 21, and workers hoisted it to the top of the Titan II on Oct. 18. Technical issues delayed the spacecraft’s physical mating to the rocket until Nov. 5. These accumulated delays pushed the launch date back to Dec. 9. 

      The launch abort on Dec. 9, 1964. Liftoff of Gemini 2 from Launch Pad 19 on Jan. 19, 1965. Engineers in the blockhouse monitor the progress of the Titan II during the ascent. Fueling of the rocket began late on Dec. 8, and following three brief holds in the countdown, the Titan’s two first stage engines ignited at 11:41 a.m. EST on Dec. 9. and promptly shut down one second later. Engineers later determined that a cracked valve resulted in loss of hydraulic pressure, causing the malfunction detection system to switch to its backup mode, forcing a shutdown of the engines. Repairs meant a delay into the new year. On Jan. 19, 1965, following a mostly smooth countdown, Gemini 2 lifted off from Pad 19 at 9:04 a.m. EST. 

      The Mission Control Center (MCC) at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. In the MCC, astronauts Eugene Cernan, left, Walter Schirra, Gordon Cooper, Donald “Deke” Slayton, and Virgil “Gus” Grissom monitor the Gemini 2 flight. In the Gemini Mission Control Center at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida, Flight Director Christopher C. Kraft led a team of flight controllers that monitored all aspects of the flight. At the Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC), now NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, a team of controllers led by Flight Director John Hodge passively monitored the flight from the newly built Mission Control Center. They would act as observers for this flight and Gemini 3, the first crewed mission, before taking over full control with Gemini IV, and control all subsequent American human spaceflights. The Titan rocket’s two stages placed Gemini 2 into a suborbital trajectory, reaching a maximum altitude of 98.9 miles, with the vehicle attaining a maximum velocity of 16,709 miles per hour. Within a minute after separating from the Titan’s second stage, Gemini 2 executed a maneuver to orient its heat shield in the direction of flight to prepare for reentry. Flight simulators installed where the astronauts normally would sit controlled the maneuvers. About seven minutes after liftoff, Gemini 2 jettisoned its equipment section, followed by firing of the retrorockets, and then separation of the retrorocket section, exposing the spacecraft’s heat shield. 

      View from a camera mounted on a cockpit window during Gemini 2’s reentry. View from the cockpit window during Gemini 2’s descent on its parachute. Gemini 2 then began its reentry, the heat shield protecting the spacecraft from the 2,000-degree heat generated by friction with the Earth’s upper atmosphere. A pilot parachute pulled away the rendezvous and recovery section. At 10,000 feet, the main parachute deployed, and Gemini 2 descended to a splashdown 2,127 miles from its launch pad, after a flight of 18 minutes 16 seconds. The splashdown took place in the Atlantic Ocean about 800 miles east of San Juan, Puerto Rico, and 25 miles from the prime recovery ship, the U.S.S. Lake Champlain (CVS-39). 

      A U.S. Navy helicopter hovers over the Gemini 2 capsule following its splashdown as a diver jumps into the water. Sailors hoist Gemini 2 aboard the U.S.S. Lake Champlain. U.S. Navy helicopters delivered divers to the splashdown area, who installed a flotation collar around the spacecraft. The Lake Champlain pulled alongside, and sailors hoisted the capsule onto the carrier, securing it on deck one hour forty minutes after liftoff. The spacecraft appeared to be in good condition and arrived back at Cape Kennedy on Jan. 22 for a thorough inspection. As an added bonus, sailors recovered the rendezvous and recovery section. Astronaut Virgil “Gus” Grissom, whom along with John Young NASA had selected to fly the first crewed Gemini mission, said after the splashdown, “We now see the road clear to our flight, and we’re looking forward to it.” Flight Director Kraft called it “very successful.” Gemini Program Manager Charles Matthews predicted the first crewed mission could occur within three months. Gemini 3 actually launched on March 23. 
      Enjoy this NASA video of the Gemini 2 mission. 
      Postscript 
      The Gemini-B capsule and a Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) mockup atop a Titan-IIIC rocket in 1966. The flown Gemini-B capsule on display at the Cape Canaveral Space Force Museum in Florida. Former MOL and NASA astronaut Robert Crippen stands beside the only flown Gemini-B capsule – note the hatch in the heat shield at top. Gemini 2 not only cleared the way for the first crewed Gemini mission and the rest of the program, it also took on a second life as a test vehicle for the U.S. Air Force’s Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL). The Air Force modified the spacecraft, including cutting a hatch through its heat shield, renamed it Gemini-B, and launched it on Nov. 3, 1966, atop a Titan IIIC rocket. The test flight successfully demonstrated the hatch in the heat shield design during the capsule’s reentry after a 33-minute suborbital flight. Recovery forces retrieved the Gemini-B capsule in the South Atlantic Ocean and returned it to the Air Force for postflight inspection. This marked the only repeat flight of an American spacecraft intended for human spaceflight until the advent of the space shuttle. Visitors can view Gemini 2/Gemini-B on display at the Cape Canaveral Space Force Museum.  
      View the full article
    • By NASA
      Insights into metal alloy solidification

      Researchers report details of phase and structure in the solidification of metal alloys on the International Space Station, including formation of microstructures. Because these microstructures determine a material’s mechanical properties, this work could support improvements in techniques for producing coatings and additive manufacturing or 3D printing processes.

      METCOMP, an ESA (European Space Agency) investigation, studied solidification in microgravity using transparent organic mixtures as stand-ins for metal alloys. Conducting the research in microgravity removed the influence of convection and other effects of gravity. Results help scientists better understand and validate models of solidification mechanisms, enabling better forecasting of microstructures and improving manufacturing processes.
      Image from the METCOMP investigation of how a metal alloy could look like as it solidifies. E-USOC Measuring the height of upper-atmospheric electrical discharges

      Researchers determined the height of a blue discharge from a thundercloud using ground-based electric field measurements and space-based optical measurements from Atmosphere-Space Interactions Monitor (ASIM). This finding helps scientists better understand how these high-altitude lightning-related events affect atmospheric chemistry and could help improve atmospheric models and climate and weather predictions.

      ESA’s ASIM is an Earth observation facility that studies severe thunderstorms and upper-atmospheric lighting events and their role in the Earth’s atmosphere and climate. Upper-atmospheric lightning, also known as transient luminous events, occurs well above the altitudes of normal lightning and storm clouds. The data collected by ASIM could support research on the statistical properties of many upper atmosphere lightning events, such as comparison of peak intensities of blue and red pulses with reports from lightning detection networks.
      An artist’s impression of a blue jet as observed from the International Space Station.Mount Visual/University of Bergen/DTU Modeling a complex neutron star

      Scientists report that they can use modeling of neutron star PSRJ1231−1411’s X-ray pulses to infer its mass and radius and narrow the possible behaviors of the dense matter at its core. This finding provides a better understanding of the composition and structure of these celestial objects, improving models that help answer questions about conditions in the universe.

      The Neutron star Interior Composition Explorer provides high-precision measurements of pulses of X-ray radiation from neutron stars. This particular neutron star presented challenges in finding a fit between models and data, possibly due to fundamental issues with its pulse profile. The authors recommend a program of simulations using synthetic data to determine whether there are fundamental issues with this type of pulse profile that could prevent efforts to obtain tighter and more robust constraints.
      Concentrators on the Neutron star Interior Composition Explorer instrument.NASAView the full article
    • By NASA
      On Jan. 17, 1990, NASA announced the selection of its 13th group of astronaut candidates. The diverse group comprised 23 candidates – seven pilots and 16 mission specialists. The group included one African American, one Asian American, and five women including the first female pilot and the first Hispanic woman. Following one year of astronaut candidate training, all 23 became eligible for technical assignments within the astronaut office and for assignment to space shuttle crews. All members of the group completed at least one spaceflight, making significant contributions to the space shuttle program, the Shuttle Mir program, important science missions, and assembly and maintenance of the International Space Station. Several went on to serve in key NASA management positions. 
      The Group 13 NASA astronaut candidates pose for a group photo – front row kneeling, Charles Precourt, left, Janice Voss, Ellen Ochoa, David Wolf, Eileen Collins, and Daniel Bursch; standing, William Gregory, left, Jeffrey Wisoff, Carl Walz, Richard Searfoss, Donald Thomas, James Halsell, Thomas Jones, James Newman, Kenneth Cockrell, Bernard Harris, Leroy Chiao, Ronald Sega, Susan Helms, William McArthur, Nancy Sherlock, Richard Clifford, and Terrance Wilcutt. The newest class of NASA astronaut candidates included pilot candidates Kenneth Cockrell, Eileen Collins, William Gregory, James Halsell, Charles Precourt, Richard Searfoss, and Terrence Wilcutt and mission specialist candidates Daniel Bursch, Leroy Chiao, Rich Clifford, Bernard Harris, Susan Helms, Thomas Jones, William Mc Arthur, James Newman, Ellen Ochoa, Ronald Sega, Nancy Sherlock, Donald Thomas, Janice Voss, Carl Walz, Jeffrey Wisoff, and David Wolf. From the 1,945 qualified applicants, NASA invited 103 candidates for interviews and medical exams at NASA’s Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston between September and November 1989. 
      Group 13 astronaut candidates Bernard Harris, left, Susan Helms, and William McArthur during wilderness survival training. Group 13 astronaut candidates William Gregory, left, and Susan Helms during water survival training. Group 13 astronaut candidate Eileen Collins listens to a lecture on parachute ejection. The 23 astronaut candidates reported to work at JSC on July 16, 1990, to begin their one-year training period. During the yearlong training, the candidates attended classes in applied sciences, space shuttle systems, space medicine, Earth and planetary sciences, and materials sciences. They visited each of the NASA centers to learn about their functions and received instruction in flying the T-38 Talon training aircraft, high-altitude and ground egress systems, survival skills, parasail flight, and scuba. They experienced short-duration weightlessness aboard NASA’s KC-135 aircraft dubbed the Vomit Comet. After completing the astronaut candidate training, they qualified for various technical assignments within the astronaut office leading to assignments to space shuttle crews. 
      The Group 13 patch. Group 13 NASA astronaut Daniel Bursch Group 13 NASA astronaut Leroy Chiao Group 13 NASA astronaut Rich Clifford. Per tradition, most astronaut classes have a nickname, often humorously given to them by the previous class of astronauts. In the case of the class of 1990, they chose their own nickname, The Hairballs. The origin stems from the class adopting a black cat as their mascot, in recognition of their class number 13. The nickname came about as hairballs are often associated with cats. 
      Daniel Bursch 
      Born in Pennsylvania, Bursch grew up in New York state and graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy. He served as a pilot in the U.S. Navy prior to his selection as an astronaut. He received his first flight assignment as a mission specialist on STS-51, flying with fellow Hairballs Newman and Walz on the 10-day flight aboard Discovery in 1993. On his second mission, the 10-day STS-68 flight aboard Endeavour in 1994, Bursch, accompanied by fellow classmates Jones, Wilcutt, and Wisoff, served as a mission specialist on the Space Radar Laboratory-2 (SRL-2) Earth observation mission. For his third trip into space, Bursch flew as a mission specialist aboard Endeavour for the 10-day STS-77 mission in 1996. For his fourth and final spaceflight, Bursch, along with fellow Hairball Walz, spent 196 days in space as an Expedition 4 flight engineer aboard the space station in 2001 and 2002, conducting two spacewalks totaling 11 hours 46 minutes. He launched on STS-108 and returned on STS-111. Across his four missions, Bursch accumulated 227 days in space. 
      Leroy Chiao 
      California native Chiao earned a doctorate in chemical engineering from the University of California, Santa Barbara, before NASA selected him as an astronaut. For his first flight, he flew as a mission specialist on STS-65, the International Microgravity Lab-2 (IML-2) mission aboard Columbia in 1994. Fellow Hairballs Halsell, Walz, and Thomas accompanied Chiao on the nearly 15-day flight, the longest shuttle mission up to that time. During his second spaceflight, the nine-day STS-72 flight of Endeavour in 1996, Chiao participated in two spacewalks totaling 13 hours 3 minutes to demonstrate future techniques. In 2000, Chiao, accompanied by fellow classmates McArthur and Wisoff, flew the 13-day STS-92 3A space station assembly mission aboard Discovery. He participated in two spacewalks with classmate McArthur totaling 13 hours 16 minutes. For his fourth and final mission, Chiao served as commander of Expedition 10 in 2004 and 2005, spending 193 days in space. During the mission, he conducted two spacewalks totaling 9 hours 58 minutes. During his four flights, Chiao logged 229 days in space and spent more than 36 hours outside on his six spacewalks. 
      Rich Clifford 
      Clifford, born in California, grew up in Ogden, Utah. He holds the distinction as one of the first three astronauts of his class assigned to a spaceflight, the seven-day STS-53 mission aboard Discovery in 1992 to deploy a large satellite for the Department of Defense. His second flight, the SRL-1 mission aboard Endeavour took place in 1994. Fellow Hairball Jones accompanied him on the STS-59 11-day Earth observation mission. For his third and final spaceflight, Clifford flew as a mission specialist on the STS-76 third Shuttle Mir docking mission. During the nine-day mission in 1996, accompanied by fellow classmate Sega, Clifford participated in a six-hour one-minute spacewalk. During his three spaceflights, he accumulated nearly 28 days in space. 

      Group 13 NASA astronaut Kenneth Cockrell. Group 13 NASA astronaut Eileen Collins Group 13 NASA astronaut William Gregory. Group 13 NASA astronaut James Halsell. Kenneth Cockrell 
      Cockrell, a native Texan, served as naval aviator prior to his selection as an astronaut. On his first mission, STS-56, he served as a mission specialist for the nine-day ATLAS-2 Earth observation mission in 1993. Fellow classmate Ochoa accompanied him on the flight aboard Discovery. Cockrell served as pilot on his second mission, the 11-day STS-69 Endeavour flight in 1995 to deploy and retrieve the Wake Shield Facility. Classmate Voss accompanied him on this mission. Cockrell commanded his third spaceflight, STS-80 in 1996 aboard Columbia, accompanied by fellow Hairball Jones. At 17 days 15 hours 53 minutes days, it holds the distinction as the longest shuttle flight. He once again served as commander on his fourth mission, the STS-98 5A space station assembly flight in 2001. Accompanied by classmate Jones, the crew delivered the U.S. Laboratory Module Destiny during the 13-day mission. On his fifth and final spaceflight, Cockrell commanded the STS-111 space station UF-2 utilization mission in 2002. During the 14-day flight, the crew brought the Expedition 5 crew to the station and returned the Expedition 4 crew, including Hairballs Bursch and Walz. During his five missions, Cockrell accumulated 64.5 days in space. He served as Chief of the Astronaut Office from October 1997 to October 1998. 
      Eileen Collins 
      Hailing from New York state, Collins has the distinction as the first female selected by NASA as a shuttle pilot. She received her first flight assignment as pilot of STS-63, the eight-day Shuttle-Mir rendezvous mission in 1995. Fellow classmates Harris and Voss accompanied her aboard Discovery. Collins once again served as pilot on STS-84, the sixth Shuttle-Mir docking mission commanded by fellow Hairball Precourt. The nine-day flight aboard Atlantis took place in 1997. On her third flight, Collins served as the first female commander of a space mission, the five-day STS-93 flight of Columbia in 1999 to deploy the Chandra X-ray Observatory. She commanded her fourth and final mission, the STS-114 return to flight mission following the Columbia accident. The 14-day flight aboard Discovery took place in 2005. During her four missions, Collins logged 36 days in space. 
      William Gregory 
      New York native Gregory served as a U.S. Air Force pilot when NASA selected him as an astronaut. He flew his single mission as pilot of STS-67, the 17-day Astro-2 mission aboard Endeavour in 1995. The mission set a record for the longest shuttle flight up to that time. 
      James Halsell 
      Halsell, a native of Louisiana, served as a U.S. Air Force pilot when NASA selected him as an astronaut. On his first spaceflight, he served as pilot on STS-65, the IML-2 mission aboard Columbia in 1994. Fellow Hairballs Chiao, Walz, and Thomas accompanied Halsell on the nearly 15-day flight, the longest shuttle mission up to that time. Halsell once again served as pilot on his second flight, STS-74, the second Shuttle-Mir docking mission that delivered the Docking Module to Mir. Classmate McArthur joined Halsell on the eight-day Atlantis flight in 1995. He commanded his third spaceflight, STS-83 aboard Columbia, the Microgravity Sciences Lab in 1997. Because managers cut the flight short after four days due to a fuel cell failure, NASA decided to refly the mission, with the same crew, later in the year as STS-94, and it stayed in space for nearly 16 days. Classmates Voss and Thomas accompanied Halsell on both missions. Halsell also commanded his fifth and final spaceflight, the STS-101 2A.2a space station logistics mission in 2000. Classmate Helms accompanied Halsell on the 10-day mission aboard Atlantis. During his five missions, Halsell accumulated more than 52 days of spaceflight time.  

      Group 13 NASA astronauts Bernard Harris Group 13 NASA astronaut Susan Helms. Group 13 NASA astronaut Thomas Jones. Group 13 NASA astronaut William McArthur. Bernard Harris 
      Texas native Harris served as a NASA flight surgeon when the agency selected him as an astronaut. He holds the distinction as one of the first three astronauts of his class assigned to a spaceflight. He served as a mission specialist on the STS-55 joint U.S.-German Spacelab D2 mission in 1993. Fellow Hairball Precourt accompanied him on the 10-day flight aboard Columbia. Harris flew as payload commander on his second and final spaceflight, the STS-63 Mir rendezvous mission in 1995, accompanied by classmates Collins and Voss. During the flight, Harris conducted a 4-hour 49-minute spacewalk, earning the distinction as the first African American to do so. Across his two missions, Harris logged 18 days in space. 
      Susan Helms 
      Helms, a native of Portland, Oregon, graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy in the first class that included women. Shortly after her selection as an astronaut, NASA assigned her to her first spaceflight, and she holds the distinction as one of the first three astronauts of her class assigned to a mission. She flew as a mission specialist on STS-54, a six-day flight aboard Endeavour in 1993 that deployed the sixth Tracking and Data Relay Satellite. On her second mission, Helms flew aboard STS-64, an 11-day flight aboard Discovery in 1994. She served as the payload commander on STS-78, the Life and Microgravity Sciences Spacelab mission aboard Columbia in 1996. The flight set a then-record of 16 days 22 hours for the longest space shuttle mission. On her fourth mission, she served as a mission specialist on STS-101, the 2A.2a space station logistics mission in 2000 commanded by classmate Halsell. The Atlantis mission lasted 10 days. For her fifth and final spaceflight, she served as a flight engineer during Expedition 2, the first woman to fly a long-duration mission on the International Space Station. She conducted one spacewalk lasting 8 hours 56 minutes, a record not broken until 2024. During her five spaceflights she logged 211 days in space. 
      Thomas Jones 
      Jones, a native of Baltimore, graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy and served as a B-52 pilot when NASA selected him as an astronaut. For his first spaceflight, he served as a mission specialist on STS-59, the 11-day SRL-1 Earth observation mission on Endeavour in 1994, along with classmate Clifford. Later that same year, with just 163 days between the two missions – the second shortest turnaround time in history – Jones served as payload commander on STS-68, the 11-day SRL-2 mission also on Endeavour. Fellow Hairballs Wilcutt, Wisoff, and Bursch accompanied him on the mission. In 1996, Jones flew as a mission specialist on STS-80, commanded by classmate Cockrell. During the nearly 18-day flight – the longest shuttle flight in history – Jones had planned to participate in two spacewalks, but a stuck bolt prevented the opening of Columbia’s airlock hatch, forcing the cancelation of the excursions. Jones flew his fourth and final mission in 2001, the STS-98 5A space station assembly flight, commanded by classmate Cockrell. During the 13-day mission of Atlantis, the crew installed the U.S. Laboratory Module Destiny and Jones participated in three spacewalks totaling nearly 20 hours. During his four spaceflights, Jones logged 53 days in space. 
      William McArthur 
      Hailing from North Carolina, West Point graduate McArthur worked as a space shuttle vehicle integration test engineer at JSC when NASA selected him as an astronaut. He received his first spaceflight assignment as a mission specialist on the STS-58 Spacelab Life Sciences-2 (SLS-2) mission in 1993. Classmates Searfoss and Wolf accompanied him on the 14-day Columbia mission, at the time the longest space shuttle flight. In 1995, he flew as a mission specialist on STS-74, the second Shuttle Mir docking mission that brought the Docking Module to Mir. Classmate Halsell served as pilot on the eight-day flight of Atlantis. McArthur next flew on STS-92, the 3A space station assembly mission in 2000, accompanied by classmates Chiao and Wisoff. McArthur completed two spacewalks with Chiao totaling 13 hours 16 minutes during the 13-day Atlantis mission. For his fourth and final spaceflight, McArthur served as commander of the 190-day Expedition 12 in 2005-2006, conducting two spacewalks totaling 11 hours 5 minutes. During his four missions, McArthur logged 225 days in space and spent more than 24 hours on four spacewalks. He served as the director of the JSC Safety and Mission Assurance Directorate from 2011 to 2017. 

      Group 13 NASA astronaut James Newman. Group 13 NASA astronaut Ellen Ochoa. Group 13 NASA astronaut Charles Precourt. Group 13 NASA astronaut Richard Searfoss. James Newman 
      Born in Micronesia, Newman grew up in San Diego and earned a doctorate in physics from Rice University. He worked at JSC as a crew and flight controller trainer when NASA selected him as an astronaut. For his first spaceflight assignment, Newman flew as a mission specialist on STS-51 in 1993 with fellow Hairballs Bursch and Walz. During the 10-day mission aboard Discovery, Newman conducted a 7-hour 5-minute spacewalk with Walz to demonstrate future spacewalking techniques. His second flight took place in 1995, the 11-day STS-69 mission of Endeavour, with classmate Halsell serving as pilot. On his third mission, Newman flew as a mission specialist on STS-88, the first space station assembly flight in 1998. Classmate Sherlock, now using her married name Currie, accompanied him on the 12-day Atlantis mission. Newman participated in three spacewalks totaling 21 hours 22 minutes. For his fourth and final spaceflight in 2002, Newman flew on STS-109, the fourth servicing mission to the Hubble Space Telescope, accompanied once again by classmate Currie. During the 11-day Columbia mission, Newman conducted two spacewalks totaling 14 hours 46 minutes. During his career four spaceflights, Newman logged more than 43 days in space and spent nearly 50 hours on six spacewalks. 
      Ellen Ochoa 
      Born in Los Angeles, Ochoa received her doctorate in electrical engineering from Stanford University and worked at NASA’s Ames Research Center in California’s Silicon Valley when NASA selected her as an astronaut. Her first flight assignment came in 1993 when she flew as a mission specialist on STS-56, the nine-day ATLAS-2 Earth observation mission. Classmate Cockrell accompanied her on the Discovery mission. On her second spaceflight, she served as payload commander on the STS-66 ATLAS-3 mission, an 11-day flight of Atlantis in 1994. For her third flight, she flew on Discovery’s STS-96, the 10-day 2A.1 space station assembly and logistics mission in 1999. In 2002, on her fourth and final mission, STS-110, she served as a mission specialist on the 8A space station assembly flight that brought the S0 truss to the facility. The flight on Atlantis lasted nearly 11 days. Over her four missions, Ochoa accumulated nearly 41 days in space. Following her spaceflights, Ochoa served in management positions with increasing scope and responsibilities, as director of the Flight Crew Operations Directorate, JSC deputy director, and JSC director. 
      Charles Precourt 
      Massachusetts native Precourt graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy and served as a U.S. Air Force pilot when NASA selected him as an astronaut. On his first spaceflight in 1993, he served as a mission specialist on STS-55, the joint U.S.-German Spacelab D2 mission. Fellow Hairball Harris accompanied him on the 10-day Columbia mission. On his next spaceflight, Precourt served as pilot on STS-71, the first Shuttle-Mir docking mission in 1995. The 10-day Atlantis mission included the first shuttle-based crew rotation. Precourt commanded his third spaceflight, STS-84 in 1987, the sixth Shuttle-Mir docking mission. Classmate Collins served as pilot on the nine-day Atlantis mission. He commanded his fourth and final space mission, STS-91, the ninth and final Shuttle-Mir docking flight, earning him the honor as the only American astronaut to visit Mir three times. The 10-day mission aboard Discovery took place in 1998. Across his four spaceflights, Precourt logged nearly 39 days in space. He served as chief of the Astronaut Office from October 1998 to November 2002. 
      Richard Searfoss 
      Born in Michigan, Searfoss graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy and served as an instructor at the U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School when NASA selected him as an astronaut. On his first spaceflight, Searfoss served as pilot on STS-58, the SLS-2 mission in 1993. Classmates McArthur and Wolf joined him on the flight aboard Columbia, at 14 days then the longest space shuttle mission. In 1996, he once again served as pilot on STS-76, the third Shuttle-Mir docking mission. Classmates Clifford and Sega joined him on the nine-day flight aboard Atlantis. Searfoss commanded his third and final spaceflight, the 16-day STS-90 Neurolab mission aboard Columbia in 1998. Across his three missions, Searfoss logged 39 days in space. 

      Group 13 NASA astronaut Ronald Sega. Group 13 NASA astronaut Nancy Sherlock. Group 13 NASA astronaut Donald Thomas. Group 13 NASA astronaut Janice Voss. Ronald Sega 
      Ohio native Sega graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy and worked as a research associate professor of physics at the University of Houston when NASA selected him as an astronaut. On his first spaceflight, he served as a mission specialist aboard STS-60, the first Shuttle-Mir mission. The eight-day mission aboard Discovery took place in 1994. For his second and final spaceflight in 1996, Sega served as a mission specialist on STS-76, the third Shuttle-Mir docking mission. Fellow Hairballs Searfoss and Clifford also flew on the nine-day Atlantis mission. Across his two spaceflights, Sega logged 17.5 days in space. 
      Nancy Sherlock Currie 
      Born in Delaware, Sherlock grew up in Ohio and worked as a flight simulation engineer at JSC when NASA selected her as an astronaut. On her debut spaceflight, Sherlock flew as a mission specialist on STS-57, the first flight of the Spacehab module in 1993. Fellow classmates Voss and Wisoff joined her on the 10-day mission aboard Endeavour. On her subsequent missions, she flew under her married name of Currie. Her second trip into space took place in 1995, the nine-day STS-70 mission aboard Discovery. Classmate Thomas joined her on this mission to deploy the seventh TDRS satellite. On her third mission, Currie flew as a mission specialist on STS-88, the first space station assembly mission in 1998. Classmate Newman accompanied her on the 12-day Atlantis mission. For her fourth and final spaceflight in 2002, Currie flew on STS-109, the fourth Hubble Space Telescope servicing mission. Classmate Newman once again accompanied her on the 11-day Columbia mission. Across her four spaceflights, Currie logged nearly 42 days in space. 
      Donald Thomas 
      Ohio native Thomas earned a doctorate in materials science from Cornell University and worked as a materials science engineer at JSC when NASA selected him as an astronaut. For his first flight, he flew as a mission specialist on STS-65, the IML-2 mission aboard Columbia in 1994. Fellow Hairballs Halsell, Chiao, and Walz accompanied Thomas on the nearly 15-day flight, the longest shuttle mission up to that time. His second trip into space took place in 1995, the nine-day STS-70 mission aboard Discovery. Classmate Currie joined him on this mission to deploy the seventh TDRS satellite. Thomas flew his third spaceflight on STS-83 aboard Columbia, the MSL mission in 1997. Because managers cut the flight short after four days due to a fuel cell failure, NASA decided to fly the mission again, with the same crew, later in the year as STS-94, for the full 16-day mission duration. Classmates Halsell and Voss accompanied Thomas on both missions. Across his four missions, Thomas logged 43 days in space. 
      Janice Voss 
      Ohio native Voss earned a doctorate in aeronautics and astronautics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and worked as an integration manager at Orbital Science Corporation in Houston when NASA selected her as an astronaut. On her first spaceflight, Voss flew as a mission specialist on STS-57, the first flight of the Spacehab module in 1993. Fellow classmates Sherlock and Wisoff joined her on the 10-day mission aboard Endeavour. Voss flew as a mission specialist on her second spaceflight, the STS-63 Mir rendezvous mission in 1995, accompanied by classmates Collins and Harris. Voss flew as payload commander on her third spaceflight on STS-83 aboard Columbia, the MSL mission in 1997. Because managers cut the flight short after four days due to a fuel cell failure, NASA decided to refly the mission, with the same crew, later in the year as STS-94, for the full 16-day mission duration. Classmates Halsell and Thomas accompanied Voss on both missions. On her fifth and final spaceflight, Voss once again served as payload commander on STS-99, the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission. The 11-day mission aboard Endeavour took place in 2000. Over her five missions, Voss accumulated 49 days of spaceflight time. 

      Group 13 NASA astronaut Carl Walz. Group 13 NASA astronaut Terrance Wilcutt. Group 13 NASA astronaut Jeff Wisoff. Group 13 NASA astronaut David Wolf. Carl Walz 
      A native of Ohio, Walz worked as a flight test manager at the U.S. Air Force Flight Test Center in Nevada when NASA selected him as an astronaut. He received his first flight assignment as a mission specialist on STS-51, flying with fellow Hairballs Bursch and Newman on the 10-day flight aboard Discovery in 1993. Walz conducted a 7-hour 5-minute spacewalk with Newman to demonstrate future spacewalking techniques. For his second flight, he flew as a mission specialist on STS-65, the IML-2 mission aboard Columbia in 1994. Fellow Hairballs Halsell, Chiao, and Thomas accompanied Walz on the nearly 15-day flight, the longest shuttle mission up to that time. On his third trip into space, he served as a mission specialist on STS-79, the fourth Shuttle-Mir docking mission in 1996. Classmate Wilcutt served as pilot on the 10-day Atlantis mission. For his fourth and final spaceflight, Walz, along with fellow Hairball Bursch, spent 196 days in space as an Expedition 4 flight engineer aboard the space station in 2001 and 2002, conducting two spacewalks totaling 11 hours 50 minutes. He launched on STS-108 and returned on STS-111. Across his four missions, Walz logged more than 230 days in space and spent nearly 19 hours on three spacewalks. 
      Terrance Wilcutt 
      A native of Kentucky, Wilcutt served in the U.S. Marine Corps and worked as a test pilot at Naval Air Station Patuxent River when NASA selected him as an astronaut. Wilcutt served as pilot on his first spaceflight, STS-68, the 10-day SRL-2 Earth observation mission aboard Endeavour in 1994. Classmates Bursch, Jones, and Wisoff accompanied Wilcutt on the flight. He served as pilot on his second spaceflight, the STS-79 fourth Shuttle-Mir docking mission in 1996. Fellow Hairball Walz accompanied him on the 10-day Atlantis mission. Wilcutt commanded his third mission, STS-89, the eighth Shuttle-Mir docking mission. The nine-day flight aboard Endeavour took place in 1998. He commanded his fourth and final spaceflight in 2000, the STS-106 2A.2b space station assembly and logistics mission. The 12-day mission flew on Atlantis. Across his four missions, Wilcutt logged 42 days in space. He served as the NASA chief of Safety and Mission Assurance from 2011 to 2020. 
      Jeff Wisoff 
      Virginia native Wisoff earned a doctorate in applied physics from Stanford University and worked as an assistant professor at Rice University when NASA selected him as an astronaut. On his first spaceflight, Wisoff flew as a mission specialist on STS-57, the first flight of the Spacehab module in 1993. Fellow classmates Sherlock and Voss joined him on the 10-day mission aboard Endeavour. He participated in a 5-hour 50-minute spacewalk to demonstrate future spacewalking techniques. Wisoff served as a mission specialist on his second spaceflight, STS-68, the 10-day SRL-2 Earth observation mission aboard Endeavour in 1994. Classmates Bursch, Jones, and Wilcutt accompanied him on the flight. He served as a mission specialist on his third flight, STS-81, the fifth Shuttle-Mir docking mission in 1997. The 10-day flight took place aboard Atlantis. He flew his fourth and final mission on STS-92, the 3A space station assembly mission in 2000 that brought the Z1 truss to the facility. Wisoff participated in two spacewalks totaling 14 hours 3 minutes during the 13-day Discovery mission. Across his four spaceflights, Wisoff logged 44 days in space and spent nearly 20 hours on three spacewalks. 
      David Wolf 
      A native of Indiana, Wolf earned a medical degree from Indiana University and worked as an aerospace medical officer at JSC when NASA selected him as an astronaut. He received his first spaceflight assignment as a mission specialist on the STS-58 SLS-2 mission in 1993. Classmates Searfoss and McArthur accompanied him on the 14-day Columbia mission, at the time the longest space shuttle flight. For his second trip into space, he completed the 128-day NASA-6 long-duration mission as part of the Shuttle-Mir program in 1997 and 1998, launching aboard STS-86 and returning aboard STS-89. He participated in a 3-hour 52-minute spacewalk. He flew his third spaceflight as a mission specialist on the STS-112 9A space station assembly mission in 2002 that delivered the S1 truss to the orbiting lab. During the 11-day Atlantis mission, Wolf participated in three spacewalks totaling 19 hours 41 minutes. He completed his fourth mission on STS-127 in 2009, earning him the distinction as the last Hairball to make a spaceflight. During the 16-day Endeavour mission that delivered the Japanese module’s exposed pallet to the space station, Wolf participated in three spacewalks totaling 18 hours 24 minutes. Across his four spaceflights, Wolf logged more than 168 days in space and spent 42 hours on seven spacewalks. 
      Summary
      The NASA Group 13 astronauts made significant contributions to spaceflight. As a group, they completed 85 flights spending 1,960 days, or more than five years, in space, including one long-duration flight aboard Mir and five aboard the International Space Station. One Hairball made a single trip into space, three made two trips, one made three, 15 made four, and three went five times. Twenty-one members of the group contributed their talents on Spacelab or other research missions and three performed work with the great observatories Hubble and Chandra. Thirteen participated in the Shuttle Mir program, with 11 visiting the orbiting facility, one of them twice, another three times, and one completing a long-duration mission. Fifteen visited the International Space Station, five twice, participating in its assembly, research, maintenance, and logistics, with five completing long-duration missions aboard the facility. Eleven of the 23 performed 37 spacewalks spending 242 hours, or more than 10 days, outside their spacecraft.  

      View the full article
    • By NASA
      With the historic first international space docking mission only six months away, preparations on the ground for the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP) intensified. At NASA’s Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in Florida, workers in the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) stacked the rocket for the mission, the final Saturn rocket assembled for flight. In the nearby Manned Spacecraft Operations Building (MSOB), the Apollo prime crew of Commander Thomas Stafford, Command Module Pilot Vance Brand, and Docking Module Pilot Donald “Deke” Slayton, and their backups Alan Bean, Ronald Evans, and Jack Lousma conducted vacuum chamber tests of the Command Module (CM), the final Apollo spacecraft prepared for flight.  

      Inside the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida, workers attach fins to the Saturn IB’s first stage. In the VAB, workers secure the first stage of the Saturn IB rocket onto the milk stool, perched on Mobile Launcher-1. Workers lift the second stage of the Saturn IB rocket prior to mating with the first stage. Workers lower a boilerplate Apollo spacecraft onto the Saturn IB rocket. The Saturn IB rocket, serial number SA-210, used for ASTP had a lengthy history. Contractors originally built its two stages in 1967, at a time when NASA planned many more Saturn IB flights to test Apollo spacecraft components in Earth orbit in preparation for the Moon landing. By 1968, however, after four uncrewed Saturn IB launches, only one launched a crew, Apollo 7. Four more Saturn IBs remained on reserve to launch crews as part of the Apollo Applications Program, renamed Skylab in 1970. Without an immediate mission, the two stages of SA-210 entered long-term storage in 1967. Workers later modified and refurbished the stages for ASTP before shipping them to KSC. The first stage arrived in April 1974 and the second stage in November 1972. 
      On Jan. 13, 1975, inside the cavernous VAB, workers stacked the Saturn IB rocket’s first stage onto Mobile Launcher-1 (ML-1), modified from its use to launch Saturn V rockets during the Apollo program with the addition of the milk stool pedestal. The milk stool, a 128-foot tall platform, allowed the Saturn IB to use the same Launch Umbilical Tower as the much larger Saturn V rocket at Launch Complex 39. The next day, workers lowered the second stage onto the first, followed by the Instrument Unit two days later. Finally, on Jan. 17 workers topped off the rocket with a boilerplate Apollo spacecraft while engineers continued testing the flight article in the MSOB. 

      The ASTP Apollo Command and Service Modules arrive at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in Florida. The ASTP Command Module arrives in KSC’s Manned Spacecraft Operations Building. The Command and Service Modules – CSM-111 – arrived at KSC from the Rockwell International plant in Downey, California, on Sept. 8, 1974, by C-5A Galaxy cargo plane. Rockwell had finished building the spacecraft in March 1970 and placed it in storage until July 1972. Modifications for ASTP took place between August 1972 and August 1974, following which Rockwell shipped the spacecraft to KSC. The sign on the shipping container bore the legend “From A to Soyuz – Apollo/Soyuz – Last and the Best.” Workers at KSC towed the modules to the MSOB for inspection and checkout, joined the two modules, and placed the combined spacecraft into a vacuum chamber. 
      The prime Apollo crew of Thomas Stafford, left, Vance Brand, and Donald “Deke” Slayton suit up in preparation for an altitude chamber test in the Command Module (CM). The astronauts inside the CM in the altitude chamber. In the MSOB, the prime and backup ASTP crews conducted tests of their spacecraft in an altitude chamber. After both crews completed simulated runs in December 1974, the prime crew of Stafford, Brand, and Slayton suited up, entered the CM inside the chamber, closed the hatch, and conducted an actual test on Jan. 14, with the chamber simulating altitudes of up to 220,000 feet. Two days later, the backup crew of Bean, Evans, and Lousma completed a similar test. 

      he backup Apollo crew of Alan Bean, left, Ronald Evans, and Jack Lousma suit up in preparation for an altitude chamber test in the Command Module (CM). Workers assist backup crewmember Lousma into the CM. To solve the problem of the Apollo and Soyuz spacecraft operating at different atmospheric pressures and compositions and using incompatible docking mechanisms, engineers designed a Docking Module (DM) that acted as both an airlock and a transfer tunnel and a Docking System (DS) that allowed the two nations’ spacecraft to physically join in space. NASA contracted with Rockwell International to build the DM. Engineers equipped one end of the DM with the standard Apollo probe-and-drogue docking mechanism and the other end with the androgynous system that linked up with its opposite half installed on the modified Soyuz spacecraft. During launch, the DM rested inside the Spacecraft Lunar Module (LM) Adaptor (SLA) atop the rocket’s upper stage, much like the LM during Apollo flights. Once in orbit, the astronauts separated the CSM from the upper stage, turned the spacecraft around, docked with the DM and pulled it free. 
      Workers lower the DM into Chamber B in the Space Environment Simulation Laboratory at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston. Workers lower the DM into Chamber B in the Space Environment Simulation Laboratory at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston. After extensive vacuum testing in Chamber B of the Space Environment Simulation Laboratory at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, the flight DM arrived at KSC on Oct. 29, 1974, and workers prepared it for more testing in a vacuum chamber in the MSOB. The flight DS arrived at KSC on Jan. 3, 1975, and two weeks later workers installed it on the DM. On Jan. 27, engineers lowered the DM onto the CM in the altitude chamber to conduct a mechanical docking test. Engineers conducted 10 days of joint tests of television and audio equipment to ensure systems compatibility. 

      Workers conduct a docking test of the Docking Module with the Command Module at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. NASA support astronaut Robert Overmyer, right, works with engineers during compatibility testing. To be continued… 
      Major events around the world in January 1975: 
      January 5 – Musical The Wiz opens on Broadway, runs for 1,672 performances. 
      January 6 – The game show Wheel of Fortune debuts on NBC. 
      January 8 – Ella Grasso of Connecticut becomes the first elected female governor in the U.S. 
      January 11 – The S-II second stage of the Saturn V rocket that launched Skylab reenters the Earth’s atmosphere over the Indian Ocean. 
      January 12 – The Pittsburg Steelers beat the Minnesota Vikings in Super Bowl IX, played in Tulane Stadium in New Orleans. 
      January 15 – Space Mountain opens at Disney World in Orlando. 
      January 18 – The Jeffersons premieres on CBS. 
      January 22 – Launch of the Landsat-2 Earth resources monitoring satellite. 
      January 30 – Ernő Rubik applies for a patent in Hungary for his Magic Cube, later known as Rubik’s Cube. 
      View the full article
    • By NASA
      Hubble Space TelescopeHubble Home OverviewAbout Hubble The History of Hubble Hubble Timeline Why Have a Telescope in Space? Hubble by the Numbers At the Museum FAQs Impact & BenefitsHubble’s Impact & Benefits Science Impacts Cultural Impact Technology Benefits Impact on Human Spaceflight Astro Community Impacts ScienceHubble Science Science Themes Science Highlights Science Behind Discoveries Hubble’s Partners in Science Universe Uncovered Explore the Night Sky ObservatoryHubble Observatory Hubble Design Mission Operations Missions to Hubble Hubble vs Webb TeamHubble Team Career Aspirations Hubble Astronauts NewsHubble News Hubble News Archive Social Media Media Resources MultimediaMultimedia Images Videos Sonifications Podcasts e-Books Online Activities Lithographs Fact Sheets Glossary Posters Hubble on the NASA App More35th Anniversary 7 Min Read NASA Celebrates Edwin Hubble’s Discovery of a New Universe
      The Cepheid variable star, called V1, in the neighboring Andromeda galaxy. Credits: NASA, ESA, Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA); Acknowledgement: R. Gendler For humans, the most important star in the universe is our Sun. The second-most important star is nestled inside the Andromeda galaxy. Don’t go looking for it — the flickering star is 2.2 million light-years away, and is 1/100,000th the brightness of the faintest star visible to the human eye.
      Yet, a century ago, its discovery by Edwin Hubble, then an astronomer at Carnegie Observatories, opened humanity’s eyes as to how large the universe really is, and revealed that our Milky Way galaxy is just one of hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe ushered in the coming-of-age for humans as a curious species that could scientifically ponder our own creation through the message of starlight. Carnegie Science and NASA are celebrating this centennial at the 245th meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Washington, D.C.
      The seemingly inauspicious star, simply named V1, flung open a Pandora’s box full of mysteries about time and space that are still challenging astronomers today. Using the largest telescope in the world at that time, the Carnegie-funded 100-inch Hooker Telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory in California, Hubble discovered the demure star in 1923. This rare type of pulsating star, called a Cepheid variable, is used as milepost markers for distant celestial objects. There are no tape-measures in space, but by the early 20th century Henrietta Swan Leavitt had discovered that the pulsation period of Cepheid variables is directly tied to their luminosity.
      Many astronomers long believed that the edge of the Milky Way marked the edge of the entire universe. But Hubble determined that V1, located inside the Andromeda “nebula,” was at a distance that far exceeded anything in our own Milky Way galaxy. This led Hubble to the jaw-dropping realization that the universe extends far beyond our own galaxy.
      In fact Hubble had suspected there was a larger universe out there, but here was the proof in the pudding. He was so amazed he scribbled an exclamation mark on the photographic plate of Andromeda that pinpointed the variable star.
      In commemoration of Edwin Hubble’s discovery of a Cepheid variable class star, called V1, in the neighboring Andromeda galaxy 100 years ago, astronomers partnered with the American Association of Variable Star Observers (AAVSO) to study the star. AAVSO observers followed V1 for six months, producing a plot, or light curve, of the rhythmic rise and fall of the star’s light. Based on this data, the Hubble Space Telescope was scheduled to capture the star at its dimmest and brightest light. Edwin Hubble’s observations of V1 became the critical first step in uncovering a larger, grander universe than some astronomers imagined at the time. Once dismissed as a nearby “spiral nebula” measurements of Andromeda with its embedded Cepheid star served as a stellar milepost marker. It definitively showed that Andromeda was far outside of our Milky Way. Edwin Hubble went on to measure the distances to many galaxies beyond the Milky Way by finding Cepheid variables within those levels. The velocities of those galaxies, in turn, allowed him to determine that the universe is expanding.NASA, ESA, Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA); Acknowledgment: R. Gendler As a result, the science of cosmology exploded almost overnight. Hubble’s contemporary, the distinguished Harvard astronomer Harlow Shapley, upon Hubble notifying him of the discovery, was devastated. “Here is the letter that destroyed my universe,” he lamented to fellow astronomer Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, who was in his office when he opened Hubble’s message.
      Just three years earlier, Shapley had presented his observational interpretation of a much smaller universe in a debate one evening at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History in Washington. He maintained that the Milky Way galaxy was so huge, it must encompass the entirety of the universe. Shapley insisted that the mysteriously fuzzy “spiral nebulae,” such as Andromeda, were simply stars forming on the periphery of our Milky Way, and inconsequential.
      Little could Hubble have imagined that 70 years later, an extraordinary telescope named after him, lofted hundreds of miles above the Earth, would continue his legacy. The marvelous telescope made “Hubble” a household word, synonymous with wonderous astronomy.
      Today, NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope pushes the frontiers of knowledge over 10 times farther than Edwin Hubble could ever see. The space telescope has lifted the curtain on a compulsive universe full of active stars, colliding galaxies, and runaway black holes, among the celestial fireworks of the interplay between matter and energy.
      Edwin Hubble was the first astronomer to take the initial steps that would ultimately lead to the Hubble Space Telescope, revealing a seemingly infinite ocean of galaxies. He thought that, despite their abundance, galaxies came in just a few specific shapes: pinwheel spirals, football-shaped ellipticals, and oddball irregular galaxies. He thought these might be clues to galaxy evolution – but the answer had to wait for the Hubble Space Telescope’s legendary Hubble Deep Field in 1994.
      The most impactful finding that Edwin Hubble’s analysis showed was that the farther the galaxy is, the faster it appears to be receding from Earth. The universe looked like it was expanding like a balloon. This was based on Hubble tying galaxy distances to the reddening of light — the redshift – that proportionally increased the father away the galaxies are.
      The redshift data were first collected by Lowell Observatory astronomer Vesto Slipher, who spectroscopically studied the “spiral nebulae” a decade before Hubble. Slipher did not know they were extragalactic, but Hubble made the connection. Slipher first interpreted his redshift data an example of the Doppler effect. This phenomenon is caused by light being stretched to longer, redder wavelengths if a source is moving away from us. To Slipher, it was curious that all the spiral nebulae appeared to be moving away from Earth.
      Two years prior to Hubble publishing his findings, the Belgian physicist and Jesuit priest Georges Lemaître analyzed the Hubble and Slifer observations and first came to the conclusion of an expanding universe. This proportionality between galaxies’ distances and redshifts is today termed Hubble–Lemaître’s law.
      Because the universe appeared to be uniformly expanding, Lemaître further realized that the expansion rate could be run back into time – like rewinding a movie – until the universe was unimaginably small, hot, and dense. It wasn’t until 1949 that the term “big bang” came into fashion.
      This was a relief to Edwin Hubble’s contemporary, Albert Einstein, who deduced the universe could not remain stationary without imploding under gravity’s pull. The rate of cosmic expansion is now known as the Hubble Constant.
      Ironically, Hubble himself never fully accepted the runaway universe as an interpretation of the redshift data. He suspected that some unknown physics phenomenon was giving the illusion that the galaxies were flying away from each other. He was partly right in that Einstein’s theory of special relativity explained redshift as an effect of time-dilation that is proportional to the stretching of expanding space. The galaxies only appear to be zooming through the universe. Space is expanding instead.
      Compass and scale image titled “Cepheid Variable Star V1 in M31 HST WFC3/UVIS.” Four boxes each showing a bright white star in the center surrounded by other stars. Each box has a correlating date at the bottom: Dec. 17, 2020, Dec. 21, 2010, Dec. 30, 2019, and Jan. 26, 2011. The center star in the boxes appears brighter with each passing date.NASA, ESA, Hubble Heritage Project (STScI, AURA) After decades of precise measurements, the Hubble telescope came along to nail down the expansion rate precisely, giving the universe an age of 13.8 billion years. This required establishing the first rung of what astronomers call the “cosmic distance ladder” needed to build a yardstick to far-flung galaxies. They are cousins to V1, Cepheid variable stars that the Hubble telescope can detect out to over 100 times farther from Earth than the star Edwin Hubble first found.
      Astrophysics was turned on its head again in 1998 when the Hubble telescope and other observatories discovered that the universe was expanding at an ever-faster rate, through a phenomenon dubbed “dark energy.” Einstein first toyed with this idea of a repulsive form of gravity in space, calling it the cosmological constant.
      Even more mysteriously, the current expansion rate appears to be different than what modern cosmological models of the developing universe would predict, further confounding theoreticians. Today astronomers are wrestling with the idea that whatever is accelerating the universe may be changing over time. NASA’s Roman Space Telescope, with the ability to do large cosmic surveys, should lead to new insights into the behavior of dark matter and dark energy. Roman will likely measure the Hubble constant via lensed supernovae.
      This grand century-long adventure, plumbing depths of the unknown, began with Hubble photographing a large smudge of light, the Andromeda galaxy, at the Mount Wilson Observatory high above Los Angeles.
      In short, Edwin Hubble is the man who wiped away the ancient universe and discovered a new universe that would shrink humanity’s self-perception into being an insignificant speck in the cosmos.
      The Hubble Space Telescope has been operating for over three decades and continues to make ground-breaking discoveries that shape our fundamental understanding of the universe. Hubble is a project of international cooperation between NASA and ESA (European Space Agency). NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, manages the telescope and mission operations. Lockheed Martin Space, based in Denver, also supports mission operations at Goddard. The Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, conducts Hubble science operations for NASA.
      Explore More
      Edwin Hubble Hubble Views the Star That Changed the Universe The History of Hubble Facebook logo @NASAHubble @NASAHubble Instagram logo @NASAHubble Media Contact:
      Claire Andreoli (claire.andreoli@nasa.gov)
      NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD
      Ray Villard
      Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, MD
      Share
      Details
      Last Updated Jan 15, 2025 EditorAndrea GianopoulosLocationNASA Goddard Space Flight Center Related Terms
      Andromeda Galaxy Astrophysics Astrophysics Division Goddard Space Flight Center Hubble Space Telescope Stars The Universe Keep Exploring Discover More Topics From Hubble
      Hubble Space Telescope
      Since its 1990 launch, the Hubble Space Telescope has changed our fundamental understanding of the universe.
      Discovering a Runaway Universe
      Our cosmos is growing, and that expansion rate is accelerating.
      The History of Hubble
      Hubble’s Night Sky Challenge
      View the full article
  • Check out these Videos

×
×
  • Create New...