Lots of things out in the Universe can cause a supernova, from the gravitational collapse of a massive star, to the collision of white dwarfs. But most of the supernovae we observe are in other galaxies, too distant for us to see the details of the process. So, instead, we categorize supernovae by observed characteristics such as the light curves of how they brighten and fade and the types of elements identified in their spectra. While this gives us some idea of the underlying cause, there are still things we don’t entirely understand. This is particularly true for one particular kind of supernova known as Type Ia.
You have likely heard of Type Ia supernovae because they are central to our understanding of cosmology. They have an important characteristic of having a uniform maximum brightness. This means we can observe their apparent brightness, compare it to their actual brightness, and calculate their distance. For this reason, they are often referred to as standard candles, and they were the first way we learned that the Universe is not just expanding; it’s accelerating under the influence of dark energy.
From the spectra of these supernovae, we can see that the initial brightness is powered by the radioactive decay of nickel-56, while much of the later brightness comes from the decay of cobalt-56. We also see the presence of ionized silicon near peak brightness, which no other type of supernova has. This tells us that Type Ia supernova are not caused by the core collapse of a star, but rather some kind of thermal runaway effect.
Single progenitor of a Type Ia Supernova. Credit: NASA, ESA and A. Feild (STScI)The most popular model for Type Ia supernovae is that they are caused by the collapse of a white dwarf. When a white dwarf is part of a close binary with an aging red giant, the white dwarf can capture some of the companion’s outer layer. Over time, the white dwarf captures enough mass that it crosses the Chandresekhar limit, which triggers the supernova. Since the Chandrasekhar limit is always at 1.4 solar masses, this would explain why Type Ia supernovae always have the same maximum brightness.
But as we’ve observed ever more supernovae, we’ve learned that Type Ia supernovae don’t always have the same maximum brightness. There are some that are particularly brighter, with weaker silicon lines in their spectra and stronger iron lines. There are some that are much dimmer than usual, with strong titanium absorption lines. This doesn’t prevent their use as standard candles since we can identify them by the spectra and adjust our brightness calculations accordingly, but it does suggest that the single progenitor model is incomplete.
Illustration of colliding white dwarf stars. Credit: European Southern ObservatoryOne possibility is that some Type Ia supernovae are caused by white dwarf collisions. Given the calculated number of binary white dwarf systems, collisions can’t account for all supernovae of this type, but stellar collisions are known to occur, and they wouldn’t be bound by the Chandresekhar limit, thus allowing for supernovae that are brighter or dimmer than usual. It’s also possible that some Type Ia supernovae are caused by accretion from a close companion, but the resulting supernova doesn’t destroy the white dwarf, which could explain the dimmer subtypes of these supernovae.
Right now, there are lots of possibilities, and we simply don’t have enough data to pinpoint causes. But the good news is that with new observatories and sky surveys such as Rubin Observatory coming online soon, we will gather a wealth of observational data, particularly from supernovae that occur within our own galaxy. This will provide us with the information we need to finally solve this longstanding astronomical problem.
Reference: Ruiter, Ashley J., and Ivo R. Seitenzahl. “Type Ia supernova progenitors: a contemporary view of a long-standing puzzle.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.01766 (2024).
The post Do We Really Know What Becomes a Type Ia Supernova? appeared first on Universe Today.
A spacecraft that can provide the propulsion necessary to reach other planets while also being reproducible, relatively light, and inexpensive would be a great boon to larger missions in the inner solar system. Micocosm, Inc., based in Hawthorne, California, proposed just such a system via a NASA Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grant. Its Hummingbird spacecraft would have provided a platform to visit nearby planets and asteroids and a payload to do some basic scouting of them.
Large space missions are expensive, so using a much less expensive spacecraft to collect preliminary data on the mission target could potentially help save money on the larger mission’s final design. That is the role that Hummingbird would play. It is designed essentially as a propulsion system, with slots for radiation-hardened CubeSat components as well as a larger exchangeable payload, such as a telescope.
The key component of the Hummingbird is its propulsion system. It uses a rocket engine that runs on hydrazine fuel. More importantly, it holds a lot of that fuel. A fully assembled system is expected to weigh 25 kg “Dry”—meaning without propellant installed—whereas a fully fueled “Wet” system would weigh an estimated 80 kg.
Travelling to a Lagrange Point is one of the things Hummingbird could do – Fraser explains why this points in space are important.That would give Hummingbird plenty of “oomph” – enough to bring its orbital speed up to an estimated 3.5 km/s delta-V, which is required for getting to hard-to-reach objects like some near-Earth asteroids. However, it could also reach other, larger places, like Mars or even Venus, the various Lagrange points, or even Mars’ moons.
When it got there, the prototype of Hummingbird described in a paper presented back in 2013 would take images of its target world using an Exelis telescope. The manufacturer of this telescope has since been bought by Harris Systems, which was then rolled into L3Harris Technologies, the owner of Aerojet Rocketdyne. However, the authors stress that the payload itself was interchangeable and could be tailored to the mission that it was meant to scout.
The Hummingbird bus was also the fuel tank, and it had additional slots for CubeSat components. These components could be used for further data collection or data analysis. However, the paper doesn’t necessarily mention how Hummingbird would handle standard CubeSat operations, like attitude control or communications back to a ground station.
A CubeSat has already made its way to Mars – as described in the JPL video.Those could likely have been worked out in future iterations. Additionally, the final design was published before the dramatically reduced cost of getting to orbit, which is now available – the authors don’t even mention a “Falcon” as a potential launch service. A lot has changed in the space industry in the last 11 years. Still, the idea behind Hummingbird, an inexpensive, adaptable platform for preliminary scouting missions to interesting places in the inner solar system, has yet to see its day in the Sun – the project did not appear to receive a Phase II SBIR grant, which could have continued its development. But maybe, someday, it or a similar system will see the light of interplanetary space.
Learn More:
C. Taylor et al – Hummingbird: Versatile Interplanetary Mission Architecture
UT – What Happened to those CubeSats that were Launched with Artemis I?
UT – A CubeSat Mission to Phobos Could Map Staging Bases for a Mars Landing
UT – We Could SCATTER CubeSats Around Uranus To Track How It Changes
Lead Image:
Computer-generated mockup of the Hummingbird spacecraft
Credit – C. Taylor et al.
The post A Cheap Satellite with Large Fuel Tank Could Scout For Interplanetary Missions appeared first on Universe Today.