Recipient organisationUniversity of KentSource-published name: University of Kent
Funding£509K
PeriodJun 2025 — Jun 2028
In plain English
AI plain-English summary
Dust grains slamming into spacecraft collectors at thousands of miles per hour get crushed, melted, or vaporised, scrambling the chemical fingerprints scientists need to read. This project tackles a fundamental problem in planetary science: cosmic dust carries pristine records of how moons, planets, and comets formed, but the act of capturing it at high speed destroys or alters those records. Researchers do not yet know which capture materials best preserve different types of dust—mineral grains from Io’s volcanic plumes, organic-rich ices from Enceladus, or random particles in near-Earth space. Without that knowledge, future missions risk returning compromised samples. The team will fire simulated dust grains into various capture media using a two-stage light gas gun at the University of Kent, then analyse the recovered material with a suite of instruments to measure how much survives intact and whether certain grain types are systematically lost or biased. The results will feed directly into three mission concepts currently being developed by space agencies, which require detailed proposals within five years. This is fundamental science with a clear applied pathway. If successful, it will ensure that upcoming dust-collection missions—to Jupiter’s moon Io, Saturn’s moon Enceladus, and the near-Earth environment—return data that planetary scientists can trust, and secure a UK role on those mission science teams.
View original technical description
Dust is a fundamental component of our solar system, providing a snapshot of the source composition and a valuable window into the processes by which these bodies or regions have formed and evolved. Collection of this dust in space is, however, performed via high-speed capture into a variety of media, resulting in high pressures and temperatures that can alter particles. This project aims to determine the most appropriate methods to collect cosmic dust in space at high-speeds, in ways which maximize the yield whilst minimizing and understanding any collection alteration or biases (e.g. are some materials captured more efficiently than others). In particular, we will focus on three scenarios relating to space mission/experiment concepts currently in development, with space agencies seeking detailed and fully justified proposals within the next 5 years for mission selection purposes: 1. The collection of dust from the volcanic plumes of Io (focusing on mineralic dusts), 2. The collection of dust from icy plumes of Enceladus (focusing on organic and brine-rich ices), 3. The opportunistic collection of dust in the Near-Earth environment by space hardware. These will be investigated through shot programs using the two stage light gas gun at the University of Kent (UoK), to simulate the capture conditions relevant to each mission (e.g. capture media, dust grain type, impact speed). The samples generated will be studied by an interdisciplinary team (planetary science/chemistry/bioscience) with a range of analytical instrumentation at UoK to assess how well (how much and/or how intact dust is collected) different available capture media have performed. In doing so we will provide key underpinning data for these and future mission concepts at their initial stages of development when such groundwork is vital. We have active collaborations with members of Io (Washington University in St Louis) and Enceladus (UC Berkeley) dust sampling mission concept teams, along with continued involvement in the study of near-Earth dust populations and the ESA Gateway Dust Facilities Definition Team. This, together with our existing expertise in the field of dust detection/collection, will ensure our results feed directly into these mission concept designs, and in doing so secure a UK presence on their science teams.
Plain English summaries and category classifications on this site are generated by AI and may not perfectly reflect the original research.
Is something wrong? Let us know