By Christopher Moore
As if we didn’t already have enough planets …
The Associated Press reports that the same astronomers who claim to have discovered a 10th planet now claim that the new rock has its very own moon.
Read the AP report here:
While observing the new, so-called planet from Hawaii last month, a team of astronomers led by Michael Brown of the California Institute of Technology spotted a faint object trailing next to it. Because it was moving, astronomers ruled it was a moon and not a background star, which is stationary.
The so-called 10th planet (named Xena) was discovered in July. The existence of an observable moon is good news for astronomers, since it will allow them to ascertain the mass and size of the planet.
Cosmic Log comments on the discovery and the name.
By Christopher Moore
I’ve always been a big fan of “Caveman Science.” Take a big rock, smash something, and see what happens. Ahhhh, satisfaction. As a child I would use whatever I could to deconstruct whatever I could, with the purpose of learning how the thing worked. Of course, I usually just blew it up only to find out that blown-up stuff doesn’t work anymore.
I’m not the only grown man who never grew up, though. NASA scientists are planning on blowing up a huge comet to … well … learn what its made out of. Imagine wanting to know what a radio is made of. To find out, stick a M80 Firecracker into the thing, light it, stand back, and after the explosion look around and see what came out. You’ll find transitors, capacitors, burnt wires, a few screws and who knows what else. That’s how we are going to learn about a comets composition.
Scientists know very little about comets, and this mission should shed some new light:
“A sample return would be the ultimate, but this is one exciting mission because for the first time we’re actually reaching out and we’re going to create our own crater,” says Donald Yeomans, a senior research scientist at JPL in California — and an adviser on the movie Deep Impact, which shares its name with the spacecraft to be lauched.
“We’ll understand how the comet is put together, its density, its porosity, whether it has a surface crust and underlying ices, whether it’s layered ice, whether it’s a wimpy comet or whether it’s a rock-hard ice ball. All of these things will become apparent after we smack it.”
The energy produced by the impact of the spacecraft into the comet will be the equivalent of about 4.5 tons of TNT. Not a bad little slap. As Richard Grammier, manager of NASA’s Jet Propultion Laboratory, puts it: “It would be like it’s standing in the middle of the road and this huge semi coming down at it at 23,000 mph, you know, just bam!”
Liftoff is targeted for Jan. 12 and the impact, which will look like a fireworks display when viewed through a telescope, should occur on … get this … July 4th.
Ug like science. Ug want hit rock. Make boom.
Or as any middle school boy will tell you, blowing stuff up is cool.
By Christopher Moore
I know it seems like I’m preoccupied with space, but there is a lot of interesting stuff going on right now in private sector space exploration. So get over it.
Anyway, Bigelow has finally decided to unveil his $50 million X-prize-esque challenge to rocket builders and space enthusiasts. You can learn more here.
Here are the rules:
1. The spacecraft must reach a minimum altitude of 400 kilometers (approximately 250 miles).
2. The spacecraft must reach a minimum velocity sufficient to complete two full orbits at altitude before returning to Earth.
3. The spacecraft must carry no less than a crew of five people.
4. The spacecraft must dock or demonstrate its ability to dock with a Bigelow Aerospace inflatable space habitat, and be capable of remaining on station at least six months.
5. The spacecraft must perform two consecutive, safe and successful orbital missions within a period of 60 calendar days, subject to government regulations.
6. No more than 20 percent of the spacecraft may be composed of expendable hardware.
7. The contestant must be domiciled in the United States of America.
8. The contestant must have its principal place of business in the United States of America.
9. The competitor must not accept of utilize government development funding related to this contest of any kind, nor shall there be any government ownership of the competitor. Using government test facilities shall be permitted.
10. The spacecraft must complete its two missions safely and successfully, with all five crew members aboard for the second qualifying flight, before the competition’s deadline of Jan. 10, 2010.
So no big deal. Just send five people into orbit around the Earth, do it again, and collect your check.
If you’re looking for me, I’ll be in the garage working on a rocket.
By Christopher Moore
I just finished watching an episode of the West Wing. The ending reminded me of why I love science and why I love spreading that love via teaching. It reminded me of how much courage it takes to try, even when you will probably fail.
In the beginning of the episode, the President is practicing for a telecast that he will be participating in with NASA scientists on the following day. They will be sharing with young students the first images transmitted by a Mars rover called Galileo 5. There’s talk of adding a bigger theme, something more than just a couple of pictures from a barren planet. Something about exploration.
Sometime in the middle of the episode the signal from Galileo 5 is lost. NASA is trying to regain it, but it becomes evident that the landing was unsuccessful and that the mission was lost. They plan to cancel the telecast.
At the end of the episode, the President’s spokesperson suggests to the president that maybe they should go ahead with the telecast. “We have a captive audience of thousands of young minds, some of which are afraid to go to the blackboard or raise their hand because they might be wrong. Let’s say to them that even the big boys get it wrong. And then tell them that we’re going to build Galileo 6.”
That’s a bigger theme.
Being wrong takes courage. Because any time we explore beyond what is known, we take a risk. We take the risk that we may fail. But if we never try, if we never pursue new knowledge, we have already failed.
Raise your hand. Go to the blackboard. Have the courage to be wrong. The only time we ever truly learn is when we fail first.
By Christopher Moore
The successful flight of Burt Rutan’s SpaceShipOne not only won the Ansari X-prize, but it also set off a flurry of activity in the fledgling space tourism industy. As I reported here, Richard Branson already has paying customers lined up to be the first space tourists hitching a ride on a non-governmental rocket.
That’s exciting news.
But as Alan Boyle reports on MSNBC, the government is “riding to the rescue” to save poor, innocent people from the dangers of space flight. God bless them for once again attempting to stifle a young (nearly non-existent) industry. Here’s how Boyle descibes a bill before Congress:
In its original as well as its amended form, the bill lays out the process for licensing suborbital space vehicles so that they could carry paying passengers — something that SpaceShipOne, for example, is not allowed to do. The Federal Aviation Administration’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation already issues suborbital launch licenses, but the new legislation would have put the FAA’s procedures on firmer footing.
The law also would have allowed customers to fly on those space vehicles, provided that they were fully informed about the risks and signed a consent form.
The House approved the original version by a 402-1 vote, but when it went over to the Senate side, it became caught up in negotiations — at first, over the definitions of space vehicle, then over the bill’s safety priorities.
In the amended version, the FAA is repeatedly charged with looking after the “safety of crew and spaceflight participants” as well as public health and safety. The original bill notes that “space transportation is inherently risky,” while the amended version adds this phrase: “but the industry should be held to the highest standards of safety when transporting humans.”
Let’s forget for a second that the single most dangerous activity one could participate in is driving to work. Nevermind for a short while that people “jump out of perfectly good airplanes” daily with very little government involvement. Don’t consider the thousands of people who hang from steep, tall rocks or those silly folks who get a kick out of swimming in deep, cold water.
People do dangerous, stupid stuff. But the government doesn’t even bother to hold theme parks to “the highest standards of safety.” When I got SCUBA certified, a private citizen representing a private organization taught me and certified me. I taught myself how to rock climb. I used to do it all the time, and I never asked or told the government what I ws doing. I do really stupid stuff in my garage all the time, and I’ve never had a government agent stop by. I’m still alive, too.
But this legislation is different. We’re talking about GOING INTO SPACE. So of course government must get involved, right? Here’s what Glenn Reynolds has to say about this:
Regulation of commercial space passengers should be based on ensuring the highest standards of safety for third parties — nobody consents, as part of everyday life, to the risk of having a rocket come down on top of him. But where passengers are concerned, it’s another story. We ought to let people consent to the risks, both the known risks and the “known and unknown unknowns” regarding problems we can’t really anticipate in detail.
Sure. I conceed that it would be a bad idea to allow just anyone to light up a huge rocket anywhere they please. I’d be a little miffed if I woke up to find my neighbor’s rocket sitting in my kitchen. I feel the same way about my neighbor’s kids, dogs, and bullets. That’s why there are laws against trespass, for fences, and against shooting at my windows.
But as Reynolds points out, people understand risk. And so long as they understand the risk, and don’t harm anyone else, let ‘em fly. I think my neighbor’s German Shepard is a big, dangerous dog. I wouldn’t own one. I’d be afraid it would eat my kids. But he knows and understands the risks and has a nice, tall fence.
What would the revised version of this congrssional bill do for space tourism? It would kill it. You can’t insure the “safety of crew and spaceflight participants.” This Space.com article suggests that the FAA understands the issue:
Our first concern will be the safety of the uninvolved public, making sure that as this grows and develops that we’re doing everything we can to protect the folks on the ground, to make sure that the people who go into space understand the risks,” she said. “It will be a risky business for many years to come, no doubt.
Why can’t the congress listen? I still have hope that I will one day leave Earth atmosphere. The market always seems to survive, even while being held beneath the fluffy pillow of government regulation. I’d rather it thrived. And that’s why I’m voting for this man on November 2. And if the media would pay him some notice, I’m sure many more would follow suit.
By Christopher Moore
The rover Opportunity discovered more evidence of a watery past for the Marsian surface. For more see this article.
Data sent back by Opportunity suggests an area known as the Meridiani Planum, was drenched with water a second time, after an impact excavated a huge crater.
The rover project’s main mission has been to discover evidence that water may have flowed on Mars. If there was water, there was the possibility for life.
The big questions on most people’s minds, though, is: Who cares? How does life on Mars affect me?
Many scientists believe that Mars used to be teaming with life, much like an early, premordial Earth. For some reason, Mars became a barren ice planet and Earth became what we all sit atop today. Why?
Why did Mars fall victim to a cold death while Earth thrived? Could Earth be facing the same fate? If so, can we stop it?
These are the questions being addressed by our probing of the Marsian surface. The science behind these missions may well save our collective lives one day.
It may even be possible for us to “jump start” Mars and bring her back to life. Another habitable planet next door could accomodate our growing population and depleting resources. The resources offered by Mars could make our very existence more long-lived.
For those who consider the human race a virus and have no concern for the survival of the species … well you don’t care anyway. I, on the other hand, am ready to hop aboard a Rubicon rocket, enjoy my layover on the moon, and set-up camp on Mars.
Next Entries »
