ALBERT

Description: There are many prospective mission opportunities involving atmospheric entry probes. The Planetary Science Deep Space SmallSat Studies (PSDS3) re-cently selected probe missions to Venus, Mars, and the outer planets as part of the 10 selected studies. Two of the six themes in the most recent New Fron-tiers call were a Saturn probe and a Venus in situ explorer. The 2013-2022 Planetary Science Decadal Survey includes probe missions at Venus, Mars, Saturn, Titan, Uranus, and Neptune. Across mission destinations and mission classes there is growing interest in planetary probes. While interplanetary trajectory specialists may like to use a broad sweep of low-fidelity solutions to find a wide array of trajectory options, probe specialists typically start off with mid- to high-fidelity point designs for the entry probe since the equations of motion for atmospheric probes require numerical integration and are so directly linked with some of the probe's subsystem design. Cur-rently, there are no alternatives to this design ap-proach as there are no tools capable of automatical-ly and concurrently designing interplanetary and atmospheric trajectories. Unfortunately, this makes us reliant on point designs in the early stages of the mission design process. The reliance on point de-signs for atmospheric probes hinders the flexibility of the design, making the design process cumber-some and restricting decision-making down the road. The research presented here addresses this problem by providing low-fidelity models for the automated, rapid design of atmospheric trajectories and probe's models which may be solved concur-rently with the interplanetary trajectory.

Description: The stratospheric age of air (AoA) is a useful measure of the overall capabilities of a general circulation model (GCM) to simulate stratospheric transport. Previous studies have reported a large spread in the simulation of AoA by GCMs and coupled chemistry-climate models (CCMs). Compared to observational estimates, simulated AoA is mostly too low. Here we attempt to untangle the processes that lead to the AoA differences between the models and between models and observations. AoA is influenced by both mean transport by the residual circulation and two-way mixing; we quantify the effects of these processes using data from the CCM inter-comparison projects CCMVal-2 (Chemistry-Climate Model Validation Activity 2) and CCMI-1 (Chemistry-Climate Model Initiative, phase 1). Transport along the residual circulation is measured by the residual circulation transit time (RCTT). We interpret the difference between AoA and RCTT as additional aging by mixing. Aging by mixing thus includes mixing on both the resolved and subgrid scale. We find that the spread in AoA between the models is primarily caused by differences in the effects of mixing and only to some extent by differences in residual circulation strength. These effects are quantified by the mixing efficiency, a measure of the relative increase in AoA by mixing. The mixing efficiency varies strongly between the models from 0.24 to 1.02. We show that the mixing efficiency is not only controlled by horizontal mixing, but by vertical mixing and vertical diffusion as well. Possible causes for the differences in the models' mixing efficiencies are discussed. Differences in subgrid-scale mixing (including differences in advection schemes and model resolutions) likely contribute to the differences in mixing efficiency. However, differences in the relative contribution of resolved versus parameterized wave forcing do not appear to be related to differences in mixing efficiency or AoA.

Description: No abstract available

Description: No abstract available