The soil on Mars may indeed be teeming with microbes, according to a new interpretation of data first collected more than 30 years ago.
The search for life on Mars appeared to hit a dead end in 1976 when Viking landers touched down on the red planet and failed to detect biological activity.
There was another flurry of excitement a decade later, when Nasa thought it had found evidence of life in a Mars meteorite but doubts have since been cast on that finding.
Today, Joop Houtkooper from Justus-Liebig-University in Giessen, Germany, will claim the Viking spacecraft may in fact have encountered signs of a weird life form based on hydrogen peroxide on the subfreezing, arid Martian surface.
His analysis of one of the experiments carried out by the Viking spacecraft with a geophysicist, Dirk Schulze-Makuch of Washington State University, Pullman, suggests that 0.1 percent of the Martian soil could be of biological origin, he will tell the European Planetary Science Congress in Potsdam, Germany.
that is roughly comparable to biomass levels found in some Antarctic permafrost, home to a range of hardy bacteria and lichen. “It is interesting because one part per thousand is not a small amount,” Houtkooper said yesterday.
“We will have to find confirmatory evidence and see what kind of microbes these are and whether they are related to terrestrial microbes. It is a possibility that life has been transported from Earth to Mars or vice versa a long time ago.”
The discovery of microbes on Earth that can exist in environments previously thought too hostile has fuelled debate over extraterrestrial life.
Houtkooper believes Mars could be home to just such “extremophiles” – in this case, microbes whose cells are filled with a mixture of hydrogen peroxide and water. Such a mixture would provide clear benefits to organisms in the cold, dry Martian environment.
Its freezing point is as low as -56.5 C (depending on the concentration of peroxide); below that temperature it becomes firm but does not form cell-destroying crystals, as water ice does; and hydrogen peroxide is hygroscopic, which means it attracts water vapour from the atmosphere – a valuable trait on a planet where liquid water is rare.
Houtkooper believes their presence would account for unexplained rises in oxygen and carbon dioxide when NASA’s Viking landers incubated Martian soil.
He bases his calculation of the biomass of Martian soil on the assumption that these gases were produced during the breakdown of organic material.
Hydrogen peroxide is also a powerful oxidant. When released from dying cells, it would sharply lower the amount of organic material in their surroundings.
this would help explain why Viking’s gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer detected no organic compounds on the surface of Mars.
This result has also been questioned recently by Rafael Navarro-Gonzalez from the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico in Mexico City University of Mexico, who reported that similar instruments and methodology are unable to detect organic compounds in places on Earth, such as Antarctic dry valleys, where we know soil microorganisms exist.
The twin spacecraft, Viking 1 and Viking II, landed on the Red Planet in 1976. They were equipped with detectors designed to test the Martian soil for evidence of life.
The main instrument, called the TV-GC-MS assay, rapidly heated and vaporised soil for analysis by a spectrometer.
Dr Navarro-Gonzales concluded: “The fact that no organic molecules were released .. during the analysis of the Mars soils does not demonstrate that there were no organic materials on the surface of Mars..”
“We suggest that the design of future organic instruments for Mars should include other methods to be able to detect extinct and or extant life.”
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Friday, December 25, 2009
NASA scientists have produced the most compelling evidence yet that bacterial life exists on Mars.
It showed that microscopic worm-like structures found in a Martian meteorite that hit the Earth 13,000 years ago are almost certainly fossilized bacteria. The so-called bio-morphs are embedded beneath the surface layers of the rock, suggesting that they were already present when the meteorite arrived, rather than being the result of subsequent contamination by Earthly bacteria.
"This is very strong evidence of life on Mars," said David Mackay, a senior scientist at the NASA Johnson Space Center, who was part of the team of scientists that originally investigated the meteorite when it was discovered in 1984.
In a 1996 study of the sample, Dr Mackay and others argued that the microfossils were evidence of life, but sceptics dismissed the claims, saying that similar-shaped structures might not be biological. The new analyses, the product of high resolution electron microscopy, make a strong case for the Allan Hills 84001 Meteorite having carried Martian life to Earth. The microscopes were focused on tiny magnetite crystals present in the surface layers of the meteorite, which have the form of simple bacteria. Some argued that these could be the result of a carbonate breaking down in the heat of the impact.
The new analyses show that this is very unlikely to have resulted in the kinds of structures seen in the rock. Close examination suggested that about 25 percent of the crystal structures were chemically consistent with being formed from bacteria.
"We feel vindicated. We’ve shown the alternate explanation is absolutely incorrect, leading us back to our original position that these structures are formed by bacteria on Mars," Dr Mackay said.
Dennis Bazylinski, an astrobiologist from the University of Nevada who peer-reviewed the findings, said: "Until now I was on the fence but this paper has really thrown out the non-biological explanation." However, he added that the study was not a "smoking gun" for life on Mars. "One meteorite is never going to answer such a complex question," he said.
=================================================================
Allan Hills 84001 (commonly abbreviated ALH 84001[1]) is a meteorite that was found in Allan Hills, Antarctica on December 27, 1984 by a team of US meteorite hunters from the ANSMET project. Like other members of the group of SNCs (shergottite, nakhlite, chassignite), ALH 84001 is thought to be from Mars. On discovery, its mass was 1.93 kg. It made its way into headlines worldwide in 1996 when scientists announced that it might contain evidence for microscopic fossils of Martian bacteria.
This rock is theorized to be one of the oldest pieces of the solar system, proposed to have crystallized from molten rock 4.5 billion years ago. Based on hypotheses surrounding attempts to identify where extraterrestrial rocks come from, it is supposed to have originated on Mars and is related to other Martian meteorites.
In September 2005, Vicky Hamilton of the University of Hawaii at Manoa presented an analysis of the origin of ALH 84001 using data from the Mars Global Surveyor and Mars Odyssey spacecraft orbiting Mars. According to the analysis, Eos Chasma in the Valles Marineris canyon appears to be the source of the meteorite.[2] The analysis was not conclusive, in part because it was limited to parts of Mars not obscured by dust.
The theory holds that ALH 84001 was shocked and broken by one or more meteorite impacts on the surface of Mars some 3.9 to 4.0 billion years ago, but remained on the planet. It was later blasted off from the surface in a separate impact about 15 million years ago and impacted Earth roughly 13,000 years ago. These dates were established by a variety of radiometric dating techniques, including samarium-neodymium (Sm-Nd), rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr), potassium-argon (K-Ar), and carbon-14.[3][4]
It is hypothesized that ALH 84001 originated from a time period during which water may have existed on Mars.[5] Other meteorites that have potential biological markings have generated less interest because they do not originate from a "wet" Mars. ALH 84001 is the only meteorite collected from such a time period.[5]
The announcement of possible extraterrestrial life caused considerable controversy at the time and opened up interest in Martian exploration. When the discovery was announced, many immediately conjectured that the fossils were the first true evidence of extraterrestrial life—making headlines around the world, and even prompting U.S. President Bill Clinton to make a formal televised announcement to mark the event.[8]
"This is very strong evidence of life on Mars," said David Mackay, a senior scientist at the NASA Johnson Space Center, who was part of the team of scientists that originally investigated the meteorite when it was discovered in 1984.
In a 1996 study of the sample, Dr Mackay and others argued that the microfossils were evidence of life, but sceptics dismissed the claims, saying that similar-shaped structures might not be biological. The new analyses, the product of high resolution electron microscopy, make a strong case for the Allan Hills 84001 Meteorite having carried Martian life to Earth. The microscopes were focused on tiny magnetite crystals present in the surface layers of the meteorite, which have the form of simple bacteria. Some argued that these could be the result of a carbonate breaking down in the heat of the impact.
The new analyses show that this is very unlikely to have resulted in the kinds of structures seen in the rock. Close examination suggested that about 25 percent of the crystal structures were chemically consistent with being formed from bacteria.
"We feel vindicated. We’ve shown the alternate explanation is absolutely incorrect, leading us back to our original position that these structures are formed by bacteria on Mars," Dr Mackay said.
Dennis Bazylinski, an astrobiologist from the University of Nevada who peer-reviewed the findings, said: "Until now I was on the fence but this paper has really thrown out the non-biological explanation." However, he added that the study was not a "smoking gun" for life on Mars. "One meteorite is never going to answer such a complex question," he said.
=================================================================
Allan Hills 84001 (commonly abbreviated ALH 84001[1]) is a meteorite that was found in Allan Hills, Antarctica on December 27, 1984 by a team of US meteorite hunters from the ANSMET project. Like other members of the group of SNCs (shergottite, nakhlite, chassignite), ALH 84001 is thought to be from Mars. On discovery, its mass was 1.93 kg. It made its way into headlines worldwide in 1996 when scientists announced that it might contain evidence for microscopic fossils of Martian bacteria.
This rock is theorized to be one of the oldest pieces of the solar system, proposed to have crystallized from molten rock 4.5 billion years ago. Based on hypotheses surrounding attempts to identify where extraterrestrial rocks come from, it is supposed to have originated on Mars and is related to other Martian meteorites.
In September 2005, Vicky Hamilton of the University of Hawaii at Manoa presented an analysis of the origin of ALH 84001 using data from the Mars Global Surveyor and Mars Odyssey spacecraft orbiting Mars. According to the analysis, Eos Chasma in the Valles Marineris canyon appears to be the source of the meteorite.[2] The analysis was not conclusive, in part because it was limited to parts of Mars not obscured by dust.
The theory holds that ALH 84001 was shocked and broken by one or more meteorite impacts on the surface of Mars some 3.9 to 4.0 billion years ago, but remained on the planet. It was later blasted off from the surface in a separate impact about 15 million years ago and impacted Earth roughly 13,000 years ago. These dates were established by a variety of radiometric dating techniques, including samarium-neodymium (Sm-Nd), rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr), potassium-argon (K-Ar), and carbon-14.[3][4]
It is hypothesized that ALH 84001 originated from a time period during which water may have existed on Mars.[5] Other meteorites that have potential biological markings have generated less interest because they do not originate from a "wet" Mars. ALH 84001 is the only meteorite collected from such a time period.[5]
The announcement of possible extraterrestrial life caused considerable controversy at the time and opened up interest in Martian exploration. When the discovery was announced, many immediately conjectured that the fossils were the first true evidence of extraterrestrial life—making headlines around the world, and even prompting U.S. President Bill Clinton to make a formal televised announcement to mark the event.[8]
Why should humans go to Mars?
by Frank Stratford
Why should humans go to Mars? Many reasons for and against have been cited over the years, and many still struggle to see the relevance of this priority. It seems so far out, so detached from life on Earth, and in many ways it is. Mars is physically hundreds of millions of kilometers away. It is colder than the coldest environment on Earth and it has an atmosphere—or lack thereof—that would kill you within thirty seconds or do in a most unpleasant fashion. Compared to terrestrial destinations it loses hands down. However, we need to look at Mars in a different context.
But in the end, why are we even considering such a journey? In a word: life.
We don’t yet fully understand all the effects of microgravity but we do know that untreated or lacking countermeasures it can have serious health effects. We don’t know how much gravity is needed to avoid those problems: it’s possible the Moon’s gravity, one-sixth that of Earth, may be sufficient, but certainly Martian gravity, at one-third of Earth’s, should be no worse and may be much better. Mars also has readily available resources, including the most important: water, in relatively abundant amounts, compared to the Moon. Mars also has a roughly 24-hour day night cycle which is crucial for plant development.
But in the end, why are we even considering such a journey? In a word: life. We want to go there to see if we can find evidence of life, a second genesis, and if we don’t find it, we want to establish new life on Mars—our own. Some say that the problems of Earth should be dealt with first, that we are too immature as a species and should wait a while until we “grow up”, but here is the thing: for the first time in history a species on Earth has the knowledge and technology to ensure its own survival by seeding life on new worlds. To ignore this opportunity for some philosophical nirvana to come first could be considered as irresponsible as our environmental abuses also. If there is a planetary crisis, such as the asteroid impact 65 million years ago that wiped out the dinosaurs, and we do nothing, then we will have lost it all.
This is the broad-brush view of why we need to go to Mars, but on a more personal level, what drives people to want to go to such places, so far away, so hostile to life? For many enthusiasts it is an escape, a chance for a new start and the challenge of a lifetime. The reasons for going will be different depending on whom you talk to. They are the same reasons people on Earth moved to hostile and far away environments here.
We need to “sharpen up”, so let’s do something worthy of the effort, and something with the payoff equal to the effort put in.
The difference is Mars is a whole other planet, not just a distant land. It can be seen as a challenge—an extreme challenge—and it is, so why go? It will test our knowledge, our resourcefulness, and the limits of our abilities in every way. It will be risky, and yes, people will die. But in today’s risk-averse world, the value of a challenge has been grossly underestimated. As people become more and more “stay at home” and turn to ever more push-button solutions, we are losing our survival instinct. Existing and living to simply relax at home where it is safe is not good for any of us in the end.
Take the obesity epidemic an example: people are piling on the pounds, sitting around in front of the TV, and literally shortening their life spans while they do this. Exercise is the key to health and growth for bodies and minds, and this also applies to our society. Expansion to new frontiers should be seen as extremely valuable to us now. In a world that is struggling with political solutions to big problems like the environment, hunger, poverty, and disease, we need a challenge like Mars now more than ever. We need to “sharpen up”, so let’s do something worthy of the effort, and something with the payoff equal to the effort put in. Mars, however we get there—be it a direct path or via the Moon, and with government programs or through private commercial space development—should be in our sights, for it has the potential to change our world in ways that we dearly need now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Stratford is the founder and executive director of MarsDrive. His writing is focused on human space exploration and Mars settlement issues, with a special focus on researching alternative Mars transport solutions. He lives in Melbourne, Australia.
by Frank Stratford
Why should humans go to Mars? Many reasons for and against have been cited over the years, and many still struggle to see the relevance of this priority. It seems so far out, so detached from life on Earth, and in many ways it is. Mars is physically hundreds of millions of kilometers away. It is colder than the coldest environment on Earth and it has an atmosphere—or lack thereof—that would kill you within thirty seconds or do in a most unpleasant fashion. Compared to terrestrial destinations it loses hands down. However, we need to look at Mars in a different context.
But in the end, why are we even considering such a journey? In a word: life.
We don’t yet fully understand all the effects of microgravity but we do know that untreated or lacking countermeasures it can have serious health effects. We don’t know how much gravity is needed to avoid those problems: it’s possible the Moon’s gravity, one-sixth that of Earth, may be sufficient, but certainly Martian gravity, at one-third of Earth’s, should be no worse and may be much better. Mars also has readily available resources, including the most important: water, in relatively abundant amounts, compared to the Moon. Mars also has a roughly 24-hour day night cycle which is crucial for plant development.
But in the end, why are we even considering such a journey? In a word: life. We want to go there to see if we can find evidence of life, a second genesis, and if we don’t find it, we want to establish new life on Mars—our own. Some say that the problems of Earth should be dealt with first, that we are too immature as a species and should wait a while until we “grow up”, but here is the thing: for the first time in history a species on Earth has the knowledge and technology to ensure its own survival by seeding life on new worlds. To ignore this opportunity for some philosophical nirvana to come first could be considered as irresponsible as our environmental abuses also. If there is a planetary crisis, such as the asteroid impact 65 million years ago that wiped out the dinosaurs, and we do nothing, then we will have lost it all.
This is the broad-brush view of why we need to go to Mars, but on a more personal level, what drives people to want to go to such places, so far away, so hostile to life? For many enthusiasts it is an escape, a chance for a new start and the challenge of a lifetime. The reasons for going will be different depending on whom you talk to. They are the same reasons people on Earth moved to hostile and far away environments here.
We need to “sharpen up”, so let’s do something worthy of the effort, and something with the payoff equal to the effort put in.
The difference is Mars is a whole other planet, not just a distant land. It can be seen as a challenge—an extreme challenge—and it is, so why go? It will test our knowledge, our resourcefulness, and the limits of our abilities in every way. It will be risky, and yes, people will die. But in today’s risk-averse world, the value of a challenge has been grossly underestimated. As people become more and more “stay at home” and turn to ever more push-button solutions, we are losing our survival instinct. Existing and living to simply relax at home where it is safe is not good for any of us in the end.
Take the obesity epidemic an example: people are piling on the pounds, sitting around in front of the TV, and literally shortening their life spans while they do this. Exercise is the key to health and growth for bodies and minds, and this also applies to our society. Expansion to new frontiers should be seen as extremely valuable to us now. In a world that is struggling with political solutions to big problems like the environment, hunger, poverty, and disease, we need a challenge like Mars now more than ever. We need to “sharpen up”, so let’s do something worthy of the effort, and something with the payoff equal to the effort put in. Mars, however we get there—be it a direct path or via the Moon, and with government programs or through private commercial space development—should be in our sights, for it has the potential to change our world in ways that we dearly need now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Stratford is the founder and executive director of MarsDrive. His writing is focused on human space exploration and Mars settlement issues, with a special focus on researching alternative Mars transport solutions. He lives in Melbourne, Australia.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Obama Sets NEW Course for Space Exploration Promotes Private Firms - WSJ.com
New Course for Space Exploration Promotes Private Firms - WSJ.com: "The Obama administration appears set to chart a new course for U.S. space exploration by promoting the use of private companies to ferry astronauts into orbit, according to people familiar with the matter.
A Soyuz spacecraft is set to launch Monday in Kazakhstan, with a Russian flight commander and U.S. and Japanese flight engineers.The controversial plan would mark a trailblazing departure for the nation's space program by allowing a group of closely held start-up companies, for the first time, to compete for a central role in an arena previously dominated by much larger, publicly traded contractors with long track records working for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Journal Community Discuss: Is the U.S. space program on the right track?
The initiative is part of a broader realignment of goals for an agency suffering from low morale and chronic budget shortfalls that also has been whipsawed by changing priorities in successive administrations."
New Course for Space Exploration Promotes Private Firms .ArticleComments (16)more in Politics ».
EmailPrinter
FriendlyShare: facebook ↓ More.
.StumbleUponDiggTwitterYahoo! BuzzFarkRedditLinkedIndel.icio.usMySpaceSave This ↓ More.
. Text .
By ANDY PASZTOR
The Obama administration appears set to chart a new course for U.S. space exploration by promoting the use of private companies to ferry astronauts into orbit, according to people familiar with the matter.
View Full Image
Agence France-Presse/Getty Images .
A Soyuz spacecraft is set to launch Monday in Kazakhstan, with a Russian flight commander and U.S. and Japanese flight engineers.The controversial plan would mark a trailblazing departure for the nation's space program by allowing a group of closely held start-up companies, for the first time, to compete for a central role in an arena previously dominated by much larger, publicly traded contractors with long track records working for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Journal Community Discuss: Is the U.S. space program on the right track? .
The initiative is part of a broader realignment of goals for an agency suffering from low morale and chronic budget shortfalls that also has been whipsawed by changing priorities in successive administrations.
But even as it moves to outsource major components of the space program to private industry, these people said, the White House is planning to hedge its bets in various other ways. One likely option is to ramp up funding for certain in-house rocket programs that over the next few years could serve as a technical safety net, and eventually provide the families of more-powerful boosters required for longer-term exploration of the solar system.
The White House also intends to jettison policies that have been in place for more than a decade, by pushing for international cooperation and funding to develop spacecraft able to land and explore the surface of the moon, and ultimately perhaps Mars or one of its moons.
The administration's emerging endorsement for the spending blueprint comes at a crucial time, because senior White House aides are now laying out a plan for space exploration in the next fiscal year that is expected to meet stiff resistance in Congress. By splitting funding between NASA's traditional way of doing business and innovative private-sector initiatives, the administration is trying to forge a compromise that would bridge broader disagreements inside NASA and among segments of the aerospace industry.
The disputes revolve around the likely safety and reliability of relying on private space systems that have yet to be tested or, in some cases, even designed. Among the companies set to gain from the new policy are closely held Space Exploration Technologies Corp., founded by Internet entrepreneur Elon Musk. SpaceX, as it is known, already has a NASA contract for as much as $1.6 billion to transport cargo to the International Space Station. By the spring of 2010, the company is slated to conduct the first test flight of its larger Falcon 9 rocket intended to carry astronauts to the station.
If the White House launches a new era of commercial crew transportation, "the significance of that decision would be on par with government-supported development of railroads" that crossed the continent during the previous century, Mr. Musk said in an interview on Sunday.
But the emphasis on commercial-style services also presents opportunities for aerospace heavyweights such as Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp., both of which are anticipated to vie for contracts, according to industry and government officials.
Separately, Boeing in the next few weeks is expected to emerge as one of the winners in a small-scale NASA competition for research grants to work on advanced crew transportation concepts.
NASA's revised trajectory was discussed in broad terms during an Oval Office meeting last week between President Barack Obama and agency chief Charles Bolden.
Some details were reported on the Web site of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
While no firm decisions have been made and budget numbers remain in flux, there appears to be broad agreement inside the administration over using private rockets and capsules to access the orbiting space station. "There is clearly a recognition that if you want to do that, it should be done seriously and with enough funding" to succeed, according to one senior administration official involved in the deliberations.
The changes come four months after a presidentially appointed study group, chaired by former Lockheed Martin Chairman Norman Augustine, sharply criticized NASA's moon-oriented exploration program, dubbed Constellation, as short-sighted and underfunded. Instead, the committee advocated switching to commercially run rocket programs as a way to let NASA devote scare resources to more-ambitious exploration goals.
NASA officials have declined to discuss the deliberations, except for the renewed focus on international cooperation. In a speech earlier this month, Mr. Bolden indicated he has explicit instructions from the president to engage the Chinese, European governments and other countries.
"There are not a lot of things I can tell you with certainty" about the agency's direction, the NASA chief said. "But I can tell you, [Mr. Obama] said, do that."
On Friday, a White House press official said Mr. Obama hasn't made any final determination, but the spokesman reiterated the president's "commitment to human space exploration, and the goal of ensuring that the nation is on a sustainable path to achieving our aspirations in space."
The idea of outsourcing a big part of NASA's work has been circulating around Washington and in industry circles since the summer, but only recently has it garnered unequivocal support from the highest levels of the Obama Administration. It's likely to cost the agency as much as $3.5 billion extra to pursue the initiative, possibly including funding to help develop crew-escape systems for some of the rockets considered likely to vie for firm transportation business.
At this point, according to people familiar with the details, it's not clear whether the additional money will come from existing NASA programs or new Capitol Hill appropriations. NASA's total budget, including environmental, unmanned and other programs, is about $18.7 billion annually, though there is some talk that it may go up by $1 billion or more in the fiscal year starting October 2010.
So far, most of the relevant committees in Congress have been highly skeptical of commercial crew transportation. Members of the House Science subcommittee with oversight for NASA programs have been particularly outspoken in opposition.
Worried about crew safety ad losing thousands of contractor jobs across several states if large portions of the current human exploration program are shelved, Congress earlier this month adopted language explicitly barring NASA from abandoning or substantially revising Constellation without prior approval from lawmakers. Florida, Alabama, Texas and Utah are some of the states that would be hardest hit by major changes.
Proponents of new commercial-style programs, on the other hand, contend that such a switch would create thousands of new jobs at fledgling companies hoping to ride the latest trend. Jeff Greason, a member of the Augustine committee and president of XCOR Aerospace of Mojave, California, one of those startups, signaled on Friday that a compromise would be acceptable to his faction. In the few years it's bound to take commercial space projects to prove their value, he said in an interview Friday, it would be smart "for NASA taka advantage of the long years of experience" shared among established contractors by allowing them to compete for some of the anticipated work.
One group certain to compete is the United Launch Alliance, a joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed that now supplies nearly all of the Air Force's rockets.
One of the biggest outstanding questions is what happens to the current plans to develop and build the Ares I rocket, intended to start its NASA work by blasting astronauts into orbit. The Augustine study group basically recommended killing Ares I, partly due to its large price tag and longer than anticipated development. Congressional supporters have argued equally strongly that it should be continued. Indeed, Ares supporters are campaigning for accelerated development of the booster, plus as many as three extra test flights over the next few years.
Some NASA officials, who have been scrambling to find a way to make that happen, argue it's less risky than relying on commercial rivals such as SpaceX.
But according to people close to the situation, the White House hasn't yet decided which way to go. In any event, NASA's revised spending plan is expected to emphasize development of a so-called "heavy lift" family of follow-on rockets, able to blast 100 or more tons off the launch pad.
Write to Andy Pasztor at andy.pasztor@wsj.com
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A7
A Soyuz spacecraft is set to launch Monday in Kazakhstan, with a Russian flight commander and U.S. and Japanese flight engineers.The controversial plan would mark a trailblazing departure for the nation's space program by allowing a group of closely held start-up companies, for the first time, to compete for a central role in an arena previously dominated by much larger, publicly traded contractors with long track records working for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Journal Community Discuss: Is the U.S. space program on the right track?
The initiative is part of a broader realignment of goals for an agency suffering from low morale and chronic budget shortfalls that also has been whipsawed by changing priorities in successive administrations."
New Course for Space Exploration Promotes Private Firms .ArticleComments (16)more in Politics ».
EmailPrinter
FriendlyShare: facebook ↓ More.
.StumbleUponDiggTwitterYahoo! BuzzFarkRedditLinkedIndel.icio.usMySpaceSave This ↓ More.
. Text .
By ANDY PASZTOR
The Obama administration appears set to chart a new course for U.S. space exploration by promoting the use of private companies to ferry astronauts into orbit, according to people familiar with the matter.
View Full Image
Agence France-Presse/Getty Images .
A Soyuz spacecraft is set to launch Monday in Kazakhstan, with a Russian flight commander and U.S. and Japanese flight engineers.The controversial plan would mark a trailblazing departure for the nation's space program by allowing a group of closely held start-up companies, for the first time, to compete for a central role in an arena previously dominated by much larger, publicly traded contractors with long track records working for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Journal Community Discuss: Is the U.S. space program on the right track? .
The initiative is part of a broader realignment of goals for an agency suffering from low morale and chronic budget shortfalls that also has been whipsawed by changing priorities in successive administrations.
But even as it moves to outsource major components of the space program to private industry, these people said, the White House is planning to hedge its bets in various other ways. One likely option is to ramp up funding for certain in-house rocket programs that over the next few years could serve as a technical safety net, and eventually provide the families of more-powerful boosters required for longer-term exploration of the solar system.
The White House also intends to jettison policies that have been in place for more than a decade, by pushing for international cooperation and funding to develop spacecraft able to land and explore the surface of the moon, and ultimately perhaps Mars or one of its moons.
The administration's emerging endorsement for the spending blueprint comes at a crucial time, because senior White House aides are now laying out a plan for space exploration in the next fiscal year that is expected to meet stiff resistance in Congress. By splitting funding between NASA's traditional way of doing business and innovative private-sector initiatives, the administration is trying to forge a compromise that would bridge broader disagreements inside NASA and among segments of the aerospace industry.
The disputes revolve around the likely safety and reliability of relying on private space systems that have yet to be tested or, in some cases, even designed. Among the companies set to gain from the new policy are closely held Space Exploration Technologies Corp., founded by Internet entrepreneur Elon Musk. SpaceX, as it is known, already has a NASA contract for as much as $1.6 billion to transport cargo to the International Space Station. By the spring of 2010, the company is slated to conduct the first test flight of its larger Falcon 9 rocket intended to carry astronauts to the station.
If the White House launches a new era of commercial crew transportation, "the significance of that decision would be on par with government-supported development of railroads" that crossed the continent during the previous century, Mr. Musk said in an interview on Sunday.
But the emphasis on commercial-style services also presents opportunities for aerospace heavyweights such as Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp., both of which are anticipated to vie for contracts, according to industry and government officials.
Separately, Boeing in the next few weeks is expected to emerge as one of the winners in a small-scale NASA competition for research grants to work on advanced crew transportation concepts.
NASA's revised trajectory was discussed in broad terms during an Oval Office meeting last week between President Barack Obama and agency chief Charles Bolden.
Some details were reported on the Web site of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
While no firm decisions have been made and budget numbers remain in flux, there appears to be broad agreement inside the administration over using private rockets and capsules to access the orbiting space station. "There is clearly a recognition that if you want to do that, it should be done seriously and with enough funding" to succeed, according to one senior administration official involved in the deliberations.
The changes come four months after a presidentially appointed study group, chaired by former Lockheed Martin Chairman Norman Augustine, sharply criticized NASA's moon-oriented exploration program, dubbed Constellation, as short-sighted and underfunded. Instead, the committee advocated switching to commercially run rocket programs as a way to let NASA devote scare resources to more-ambitious exploration goals.
NASA officials have declined to discuss the deliberations, except for the renewed focus on international cooperation. In a speech earlier this month, Mr. Bolden indicated he has explicit instructions from the president to engage the Chinese, European governments and other countries.
"There are not a lot of things I can tell you with certainty" about the agency's direction, the NASA chief said. "But I can tell you, [Mr. Obama] said, do that."
On Friday, a White House press official said Mr. Obama hasn't made any final determination, but the spokesman reiterated the president's "commitment to human space exploration, and the goal of ensuring that the nation is on a sustainable path to achieving our aspirations in space."
The idea of outsourcing a big part of NASA's work has been circulating around Washington and in industry circles since the summer, but only recently has it garnered unequivocal support from the highest levels of the Obama Administration. It's likely to cost the agency as much as $3.5 billion extra to pursue the initiative, possibly including funding to help develop crew-escape systems for some of the rockets considered likely to vie for firm transportation business.
At this point, according to people familiar with the details, it's not clear whether the additional money will come from existing NASA programs or new Capitol Hill appropriations. NASA's total budget, including environmental, unmanned and other programs, is about $18.7 billion annually, though there is some talk that it may go up by $1 billion or more in the fiscal year starting October 2010.
So far, most of the relevant committees in Congress have been highly skeptical of commercial crew transportation. Members of the House Science subcommittee with oversight for NASA programs have been particularly outspoken in opposition.
Worried about crew safety ad losing thousands of contractor jobs across several states if large portions of the current human exploration program are shelved, Congress earlier this month adopted language explicitly barring NASA from abandoning or substantially revising Constellation without prior approval from lawmakers. Florida, Alabama, Texas and Utah are some of the states that would be hardest hit by major changes.
Proponents of new commercial-style programs, on the other hand, contend that such a switch would create thousands of new jobs at fledgling companies hoping to ride the latest trend. Jeff Greason, a member of the Augustine committee and president of XCOR Aerospace of Mojave, California, one of those startups, signaled on Friday that a compromise would be acceptable to his faction. In the few years it's bound to take commercial space projects to prove their value, he said in an interview Friday, it would be smart "for NASA taka advantage of the long years of experience" shared among established contractors by allowing them to compete for some of the anticipated work.
One group certain to compete is the United Launch Alliance, a joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed that now supplies nearly all of the Air Force's rockets.
One of the biggest outstanding questions is what happens to the current plans to develop and build the Ares I rocket, intended to start its NASA work by blasting astronauts into orbit. The Augustine study group basically recommended killing Ares I, partly due to its large price tag and longer than anticipated development. Congressional supporters have argued equally strongly that it should be continued. Indeed, Ares supporters are campaigning for accelerated development of the booster, plus as many as three extra test flights over the next few years.
Some NASA officials, who have been scrambling to find a way to make that happen, argue it's less risky than relying on commercial rivals such as SpaceX.
But according to people close to the situation, the White House hasn't yet decided which way to go. In any event, NASA's revised spending plan is expected to emphasize development of a so-called "heavy lift" family of follow-on rockets, able to blast 100 or more tons off the launch pad.
Write to Andy Pasztor at andy.pasztor@wsj.com
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A7
Thursday, December 17, 2009
December 16th, 2009
Could there be Life on Jupiter and Saturn's Moons?
Written by Nicholos Wethington
The ongoing search for the existence of life that doesn't call the Earth 'home' could potentially find that life right here in our own Solar System. There is considerable debate about whether evidence for that life has already been found on Mars, but astronomers might do well to look at other, more exotic locations in our neighborhood.
http://www.universetoday.com/2009/12/16/could-there-be-life-on-jupiter-and-saturns-moons/
At the recent meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Fransisco, Francis Nimmo, who is a professor of Earth and planetary sciences at UC Santa Cruz, said that the conditions on Saturn's moon Enceladus, and Jupiter's moon Europa may be just right to harbor life.
Nimmo said, "Liquid water is the one requirement for life that everyone can agree on." The water underneath the icy crusts of Enceladus and Europa may just be teeming with alien fish and algae, or more basic forms of life such as bacteria.
Nimmo is one of a long list of scientists speculating on the existence of life on these watery moons. A discovery of any life form originating from a planet other than the Earth "would be the scientific discovery of the millennium," Nimmo said. And even saying that is an understatement.
If life were able to exist in the watery oceans of the moons around Saturn and Jupiter, Nimmo said, it would mean that the 'habitable zone' around a star would extend much further out than previously thought, to moons that orbit large gas giants in other systems around faraway stars.
The possible ocean under the surface of Enceladus may receives its heat from the tidal forces of Saturn. That is, if there is an ocean under the surface of Enceladus, as that topic is still somewhat debated among astronomers. The constant tug of Saturn's gravitational pull may stretch the interior of the planet enough to heat the water below the crust of ice, which is estimated to vary in thickness between 25km to 45km. Geysers of frozen water forced out of crack on Enceladus' surface have been observed by the Cassini mission, and the craft has even flown through the plume of one of these jets.
Here's a video of Carolyn Porco, who leads the imaging team on the Cassini mission, talking about the potential for life inside the moon, and some of the discoveries made by Cassini so far:
Evidence for the ocean under Europa's icy skin comes from the Galileo mission, which passed by the moon in 2000 and took measurements of the moon's magnetic field. Variations in the magnetic field have led astronomers to believe there is a vast ocean of water under the surface, leading to natural suppositions about the potential of its habitability.
Europa's ocean is heated much in the same way as that of Enceladus: both moons have an eccentric orbit around their much more massive planets, and this orbit causes a shift in the way the planet tugs on their interiors, causing friction in the cores which in turn heats them up.
The core and surface of these moons both are possible sources of chemicals that are necessary for life to form. Impacts from comets can leave molecules on the surface, and light from the Sun breaks down compounds as well. Organic molecules and minerals may originate in the cores of the moons, streaming out into the watery 'mantle'. Such nutrients could potentially support small communities of exotic bacteria like those seen around hydrothermal vents here on Earth.
Of course, just because these moons are habitable doesn't mean that life exists there, as Nimmo and other planetary scientists are quick to point out. Cassini may still provide evidence of life on Enceladus, as the data from this last flyby of the plumes is still being analyzed. Future missions to Europa, such as the proposed 'interplanetary submarine', may also give us an answer to the question of life's existence elsewhere, and of course the quest continues for a mission to Mars that will finally give us some idea of its habitability now or in the past.
Until the data comes back from these missions, though, we'll still have to wait and speculate.
Source: UC Santa Cruz press release
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Life In The Universe Takes Orders From Space
Life In The Universe Takes Orders From Space: "Life In The Universe Takes Orders From Space
ScienceDaily (Feb. 20, 2004) — A century ago, when biologists used to talk about the primordial soup from which all life on Earth came, they probably never imagined from how far away the ingredients may have come. Recent findings have the origins of life reaching far out from what was once considered 'the home planet.' Evolution on the early Earth may have been influenced by some pretty far-out stuff."
Life In The Universe Takes Orders From Space
ScienceDaily (Feb. 20, 2004) — A century ago, when biologists used to talk about the primordial soup from which all life on Earth came, they probably never imagined from how far away the ingredients may have come. Recent findings have the origins of life reaching far out from what was once considered "the home planet." Evolution on the early Earth may have been influenced by some pretty far-out stuff.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See also:
Plants & Animals
•Extreme Survival
•Cell Biology
•Evolutionary Biology
Space & Time
•Asteroids, Comets and Meteors
•Cosmology
•Astrophysics
Reference
•Meteorite
•Astrobiology
•Origin of life
•Phosphate
In a paper published this week in the journal Science, Arizona State University Chemistry Professor Sandra Pizzarello claims that materials from as far away as the interstellar media could possibly have played an active role in establishing the chemistry involved in the origin of life on this planet.
In the paper, Pizarello and her co-author Arthur L. Weber of the SETI Institute show that the exclusive chirality of the proteins and sugars of life on Earth - their tendency to be left- or right-handed, could in fact be due to the chemical contribution of the countless meteorites that struck the planet during its early history. This paper provides a plausible explanation for how, with a little help from outside, the chemistry of non-life - characterized by randomness and complexity - becomes the ordered and specific chemistry of life.
Pizzarello studies meteorites and the chemicals housed within them. A particular type of meteorite - carbonaceous chondrites - holds particular interest. Carbonaceous chondrites are very primitive, stony meteorites that contain organic carbon. These meteorites are rare, but also very exciting for chemists interested in the origins of life on Earth and in the solar system. They contain amino acids - the molecules that make up proteins, and an essential part of the chemistry of life.
According to Pizzarello, it has been known for the last century that there are large amounts of carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen - the so-called biogenic elements - in the cosmos. And that it is reasonable to assume that these elements might have undergone some amount of chemical evolution before life even began.
According to Pizzarello, who studies meteorites from the collection at ASU (which has the largest university-owned collection in the world) the meteorites are the only evidence of chemical evolution scientists have in hand today. New techniques of meteorite analysis are leading to great breakthroughs in understanding where these meteorites came from and how they were formed. Even more exciting, work Pizzarello and her colleagues have recently published in Science explores what sort of contribution the chemical evolution represented by meteorites might have had on the early Earth.
The paper addresses what has been a basic difficulty in relating the chemical evolution represented by meteorites and the origin of terrestrial life on Earth. According to Pizzarello, this problem is that chemical evolution - what we see in meteorites - is characterized by randomness, while terrestrial life relies on specificity and selection. For example, the meteorites contain over 70 amino acids. A mere 20 amino acids make up life's proteins. "There is a fundamental difficulty in trying to figure out how you go from confusion and randomness to functionality and specificity," said Pizzarello.
So far, only one trait has been found to be similar, to some extent, between amino acids in meteorites and biopolymers, that of L-"handedness" (chirality). Because organic molecules can be asymmetric if they have different groups attached to a carbon atom, they can arrange spatially in two ways, like the two hands, and be either left or right handed. All proteins involved in life on Earth are made up of L-amino acids, while sugars involved in life have a D structure. Scientists call this "homochirality."
An overabundance (excess) of the L-form (the chemical name is enantiomer), has also been found in some amino acids in meteorites. Pizzarello and Weber devised an experiment to find whether or not the amino acids found with L-enantiomeric excess in meteorites could have transferred their asymmetry during organic syntheses on the early Earth . If so, the meteorites could have provided a constant influx of materials with this excess - especially during a period early in the solar system's history in which the Earth and other planets were pummeled heavily by meteorites.
Pizzarello and Weber report in Science that in fact their experiment succeeded in proving this possibility. In the laboratory, when performing sugar syntheses in water, using reactions that modeled what may have existed on the early Earth, the asymmetry in the amino acids led to a similar asymmetry in the sugars. Pizzarello and Weber thus were able to conclude that the delivery of material from outer space via meteorites - despite the seeming randomness and complexity of these materials - could in fact have "pushed" chemical evolution on Earth toward homochirality.
Pizzarello points out that these findings do not imply that life did not evolve on Earth, or that the meteorites were the only early source of enantiomeric excess - only that the steady contribution of these meteorites might have provided a nudge in the "right" (or, more accurately, "left") direction.
ScienceDaily (Feb. 20, 2004) — A century ago, when biologists used to talk about the primordial soup from which all life on Earth came, they probably never imagined from how far away the ingredients may have come. Recent findings have the origins of life reaching far out from what was once considered 'the home planet.' Evolution on the early Earth may have been influenced by some pretty far-out stuff."
Life In The Universe Takes Orders From Space
ScienceDaily (Feb. 20, 2004) — A century ago, when biologists used to talk about the primordial soup from which all life on Earth came, they probably never imagined from how far away the ingredients may have come. Recent findings have the origins of life reaching far out from what was once considered "the home planet." Evolution on the early Earth may have been influenced by some pretty far-out stuff.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See also:
Plants & Animals
•Extreme Survival
•Cell Biology
•Evolutionary Biology
Space & Time
•Asteroids, Comets and Meteors
•Cosmology
•Astrophysics
Reference
•Meteorite
•Astrobiology
•Origin of life
•Phosphate
In a paper published this week in the journal Science, Arizona State University Chemistry Professor Sandra Pizzarello claims that materials from as far away as the interstellar media could possibly have played an active role in establishing the chemistry involved in the origin of life on this planet.
In the paper, Pizarello and her co-author Arthur L. Weber of the SETI Institute show that the exclusive chirality of the proteins and sugars of life on Earth - their tendency to be left- or right-handed, could in fact be due to the chemical contribution of the countless meteorites that struck the planet during its early history. This paper provides a plausible explanation for how, with a little help from outside, the chemistry of non-life - characterized by randomness and complexity - becomes the ordered and specific chemistry of life.
Pizzarello studies meteorites and the chemicals housed within them. A particular type of meteorite - carbonaceous chondrites - holds particular interest. Carbonaceous chondrites are very primitive, stony meteorites that contain organic carbon. These meteorites are rare, but also very exciting for chemists interested in the origins of life on Earth and in the solar system. They contain amino acids - the molecules that make up proteins, and an essential part of the chemistry of life.
According to Pizzarello, it has been known for the last century that there are large amounts of carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen - the so-called biogenic elements - in the cosmos. And that it is reasonable to assume that these elements might have undergone some amount of chemical evolution before life even began.
According to Pizzarello, who studies meteorites from the collection at ASU (which has the largest university-owned collection in the world) the meteorites are the only evidence of chemical evolution scientists have in hand today. New techniques of meteorite analysis are leading to great breakthroughs in understanding where these meteorites came from and how they were formed. Even more exciting, work Pizzarello and her colleagues have recently published in Science explores what sort of contribution the chemical evolution represented by meteorites might have had on the early Earth.
The paper addresses what has been a basic difficulty in relating the chemical evolution represented by meteorites and the origin of terrestrial life on Earth. According to Pizzarello, this problem is that chemical evolution - what we see in meteorites - is characterized by randomness, while terrestrial life relies on specificity and selection. For example, the meteorites contain over 70 amino acids. A mere 20 amino acids make up life's proteins. "There is a fundamental difficulty in trying to figure out how you go from confusion and randomness to functionality and specificity," said Pizzarello.
So far, only one trait has been found to be similar, to some extent, between amino acids in meteorites and biopolymers, that of L-"handedness" (chirality). Because organic molecules can be asymmetric if they have different groups attached to a carbon atom, they can arrange spatially in two ways, like the two hands, and be either left or right handed. All proteins involved in life on Earth are made up of L-amino acids, while sugars involved in life have a D structure. Scientists call this "homochirality."
An overabundance (excess) of the L-form (the chemical name is enantiomer), has also been found in some amino acids in meteorites. Pizzarello and Weber devised an experiment to find whether or not the amino acids found with L-enantiomeric excess in meteorites could have transferred their asymmetry during organic syntheses on the early Earth . If so, the meteorites could have provided a constant influx of materials with this excess - especially during a period early in the solar system's history in which the Earth and other planets were pummeled heavily by meteorites.
Pizzarello and Weber report in Science that in fact their experiment succeeded in proving this possibility. In the laboratory, when performing sugar syntheses in water, using reactions that modeled what may have existed on the early Earth, the asymmetry in the amino acids led to a similar asymmetry in the sugars. Pizzarello and Weber thus were able to conclude that the delivery of material from outer space via meteorites - despite the seeming randomness and complexity of these materials - could in fact have "pushed" chemical evolution on Earth toward homochirality.
Pizzarello points out that these findings do not imply that life did not evolve on Earth, or that the meteorites were the only early source of enantiomeric excess - only that the steady contribution of these meteorites might have provided a nudge in the "right" (or, more accurately, "left") direction.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Friday, July 10, 2009
Buzz Aldrin: We need to forget about the Moon and go to Mars.
As the second man to ever walk on the moon (he stepped out of the lunar module about 15 minutes after Neil Armstrong), Buzz Aldrin knows a little something about space exploration, about bold ambitions and great risks. Now, Aldrin is speaking out about NASA, and declaring loudly that the space agency has lost its boldness.
The next step in humanity’s exploration of space must be a bootprint on Mars, he says.
Says Aldrin: “As I approach my 80th birthday, I’m in no mood to keep my mouth shut any longer when I see NASA heading down the wrong path. And that’s exactly what I see today. The agency’s current Vision for Space Exploration will waste decades and hundreds of billions of dollars trying to reach the moon by 2020—a glorified rehash of what we did 40 years ago. Instead of a steppingstone to Mars, NASA’s current lunar plan is a detour” [Popular Mechanics].
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4322647.html
Aldrin says that while the moon is interesting scientifically, it’s not promising for commercial activities. Mars, on the other hand, holds much more potential for a human colony, Aldrin says. “It’s much more terrestrial. It has a thin atmosphere and a day/night cycle that is very similar to ours. It has seasons. Russia perhaps is still entertaining the possibility that the moons of Mars might have access to ice or water” [The New York Times], says Aldrin.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/magazine/21fob-q4-t.html?_r=1
His comments come at a significant time, as the Obama administration recently ordered a review of NASA’s human spaceflight program. Aldrin hopes that the review committee will listen to him and other NASA critics and scrap the Ares rockets currently under development, which are expected to bring the next generation of astronauts into space. It would be cheaper, Aldrin says, to adapt existing satellite-launching rockets to carry a crew capsule, which would allow NASA to spend its time, money, and energy on establishing a Martian outpost.
Taking a lesson from the ups and downs of NASA funding over the years, Aldrin says “we shouldn’t be dependent on a program that can be cancelled once we’ve gone and returned. We need to start something that has a self-sustaining nature. Six people can’t get that done. But 40, 50 or 60 can. You need to build a thriving, self-sustaining settlement that doesn’t need extensive re-supply from Earth” [The Wall Street Journal]. Aldrin says we ought to send the first settlers to Mars by 2035, which would be 66 years after the first steps were taken on the moon.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124586953937749041.html
=========================================================================
Technology Patents
Aldrin Permanent Space Station
By SABRA CHARTRAND
Published: February 15, 1993
EDWIN E. (BUZZ) ALDRIN JR., who walked on the moon as an
astronaut in 1969, last week received a patent for a permanent space
station he designed alone in his home office. Mr. Aldrin, who went to
the moon with Neil Armstrong on the Apollo 11 mission, wants his
space station to be the core of a "complete family of spacecraft that
support it."
The United States has issued more than five million patents since
1790, but space stations joined the ranks only in 1964. About two
dozen such patents have been issued, most for stations that must be
launched in pieces and assembled in space or that are small enough to
be carried aloft inside the space shuttle.
Mr. Aldrin's design, though large enough for a crew of 8 to 10
astronauts, can be launched in one piece and then unfolded in space.
But he said it would rely on "a larger launch vehicle like the Saturn 5
rocket," which the United States no longer uses. He hopes for
eventual cooperation with the Russian space program, which still has
a powerful rocket capable of putting a heavy payload into space.
A Tube Shape
Mr. Aldrin's space station is shaped like a tube with cylindrical crosssections
that house pressurized modules of living quarters and
laboratories; the modular construction means it can be expanded in
size. The interconnected modules are surrounded by struts and
trusswork in a "cube octahedron," having eight sides, to protect them
from things like collisions with docking spacecraft.
The design also calls for fixed solar panels.
"It's a lot tighter, and there's less movement" than in space stations
with solar panels that rotate, he said. He contends that rotating
panels cause too much vibration. "Whenever panels move, it disturbs
the micro-gravity, and that interferes with scientific experiments and
activity."
His plan is quite different from the linear architecture of the space
station Freedom, which the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration plans to start launching, in pieces, in 1996. Freedom
also uses rotating solar panels and is configured so that shuttles can
dock with it directly.
Mr. Aldrin's space station has 14 berthing zones for small transfer
spacecraft that would travel between it and larger craft like a shuttle.
Mr. Aldrin also envisions other smaller, unmanned stations devoted
to zero-gravity experiments deployed around his space station. He
acknowledges that manufacture of his space station is probably a long
way off, but he says he may market his design as a toy. He received
patent 5,184,789.
============================================================
I had a splendid career at NASA as an astronaut in the Gemini and Apollo programs. The capstone, of course, was my moonwalk on the Sea of Tranquility 40 years ago. I have only two regrets from my NASA days, and both were my own fault: I failed to speak out when I saw bad decisions being made. The first came in 1966, when NASA, in a fit of excessive caution, canceled the Astronaut Maneuvering Unit (AMU), the Buck Rogers–style jet backpack I was scheduled to try out on Gemini 12. Despite difficulties with the AMU on Gemini 9, I was very confident I could make it work. But like a good astronaut, I kept my mouth shut, and I’ve regretted it ever since. As it turned out, it took 18 years for NASA to develop another jet pack, the Manned Maneuvering Unit, used on three space shuttle missions in 1984.
My second bout of wishy-washiness, however, had more far-reaching implications. In the early ’70s I was part of a NASA committee to establish the basic architecture of the space shuttle. One of the approaches we considered was a manned booster that would have its own pilot and glide back to the Cape after giving the orbiter its initial push. It was a silly idea—way too expensive. But I didn’t object strongly enough, and we wasted a year and millions of dollars on it.
That delay and expense eventually forced a hurried decision. Instead of the customary liquid-fuel boosters like the Atlas, Titan and Saturn, which had flawless track records on Mercury, Gemini and Apollo flights, the shuttle committee decided to go with cheaper solid-fuel boosters, which had never been used for manned spaceflight. Solid-fuel rockets are lower in performance and can’t be shut off once ignited—and when something goes wrong, it tends to be catastrophic. Fifteen years after that decision, a solid-booster failure brought down Challenger, and the unhappy legacy of solid boosters lives on today in the underpowered, vibration-prone Ares I, the crew-launch rocket NASA is developing.
As I approach my 80th birthday, I’m in no mood to keep my mouth shut any longer when I see NASA heading down the wrong path. And that’s exactly what I see today. The agency’s current Vision for Space Exploration will waste decades and hundreds of billions of dollars trying to reach the moon by 2020—a glorified rehash of what we did 40 years ago. Instead of a steppingstone to Mars, NASA’s current lunar plan is a detour. It will derail our Mars effort, siphoning off money and engineering talent for the next two decades. If we aspire to a long-term human presence on Mars—and I believe that should be our overarching goal for the foreseeable future—we must drastically change our focus.
Here’s my plan, which I call the Unified Space Vision. It’s a blueprint that will maintain U.S. leadership in human spaceflight, avoid a counterproductive space race with China to be second back to the moon, and lead to a permanent American-led presence on Mars by 2035 at the latest. That date happens to be 66 years after Neil Armstrong and I first landed on the moon—just as our landing was 66 years after the Wright Brothers’ first flight.
NASA’s looming short-term dilemma is the five-year gap between the shuttle’s scheduled retirement next year and the debut of the Ares I rocket and the new Orion spacecraft, in 2015. During that hiatus, we’ll be writing checks to the Russians to let our astronauts hitch rides on Soyuz rockets to the International Space Station, in which we’ve invested $100 billion. I find that simply unacceptable.
READ THE REST AT http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4322647.html
=============================================================================
Forty summers ago, the world was transfixed by the sight of you walking on the moon. Have we made any progress since the Apollo 11 flight?
Not a whole lot. We shifted our attention to low-earth orbit.
Meaning the shuttle program, which is about to end?
We’ve been concentrating on the shuttle, the space station and laying the groundwork for returning to the moon. The disturbing part is that, all this time, Russia has been concentrating on Phobos, a moon of Mars, and a number of us have recently realized just how significant that would be as a stepping stone to Mars.
Do you think Mars has more to offer than the moon?
Yes, much more. It’s much more terrestrial. It has a thin atmosphere and a day/night cycle that is very similar to ours. It has seasons. Russia perhaps is still entertaining the possibility that the moons of Mars might have access to ice or water.
Are you saying the moon has become passé?
It is not promising for commercial activities. It’s got science, it may have strategic values but I don’t believe it’s a requirement for Americans to be present to take advantage of the resources. Their viability can be determined by robots.
Are the days of American pre-eminence in space over?
Yes.
Is it true that Buzz Lightyear, the cartoon astronaut, was named after you?
Apparently, but there’s no evidence in my bank account to substantiate that.
Do you know Charles Bolden, the former astronaut who has been nominated by President Obama to head NASA?
I know him quite well. I was a little puzzled when I realized that his major champion is Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, who flew with him.
Right, Nelson was a congressman when he flew on the shuttle. But isn’t that a good thing, making it easier for Bolden to muster Congressional support for NASA? Why were you puzzled?
I’m in favor of changing the destination of humans. There are a lot of manned missions that can be done, but not in the direction of the moon. I am not sure about Bill Nelson. I haven’t heard him say, “Let’s junk the NASA plan to send humans to the moon.” He’s not about to say that. That would not be very popular.
You were the second person to walk on the moon, after Neil Armstrong. Was it annoying to go second?
No. At that time I wasn’t looking for more laurels.
You gave yourself communion on the surface of the moon. Are you still a churchgoer?
No. My Sunday mornings are spent in a recovery meeting in Pacific Palisades.
In your new memoir, “Magnificent Desolation,” which comes out this week, you recount a period of ruinous drinking and clinical depression following your time in space.
I inherited depression from my mother’s side of the family. Her father committed suicide. She committed suicide the year before I went to the moon.
Was your mother’s maiden name really Marion Moon?
Yes. I didn’t feel NASA needed to know that. Somebody would think I was trying to get favored treatment because my ancestors had the name Moon. And that’s a joke.
Do you find it odd that we’re observing the 40th anniversary of both the moonwalk and Woodstock?
I don’t think I’m going to journey to Woodstock.
What sort of music do you like?
I just did a rap session with Snoop Dogg and a rap composition called “Rocket Experience.” It’s going to be an online video. The Web site is funnyordie.com.
Do you actually sing on the video?
I relate. It’s not singing, it’s rapping.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTKedyQQkZQ
How old are you now?
On July 20, the anniversary of landing on the moon, I will be precisely 79 and a half. It’s nice to be on this side of troubled waters.
INTERVIEW HAS BEEN CONDENSED AND EDITED.
==========================================================
Forty years ago next month, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon. Now Mr. Aldrin, 79, has authored a memoir, "Magnificent Desolation."
Buzz Aldrin's moon walk July 20, 1969.
.The book begins with that historic walk ("a virginal experience"), segues to Mr. Aldrin's battle with alcoholism that followed ("Beverly pleaded with me to stop drinking"), and then explores the possibilities of a meaningful second act in life (as a space exploration advocate, "I was sixty-nine years of age, but I felt more energized than ever").
The Apollo 11's lunar landing on July 20, 1969 transformed both Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Aldrin into national heroes. Mr. Aldrin's walk on the Sea of Tranquility followed Mr. Armstrong's by about 20 minutes. But Mr. Aldrin also paints a somewhat withering self-portrait of an intelligent man with a substantial ego who grappled, sometimes unsuccessfully, with career and life disappointments.
This is Mr. Aldrin's second memoir, which he wrote with Ken Abraham. His first, "Return to Earth" (1973), discussed in part his decision in late 1971 to seek psychiatric help for depression. Mr. Aldrin was interviewed by telephone.
WSJ: What prompted you to write this book?
Buzz Aldrin: The first book, "Return to Earth," told the story of the challenges I faced. But it was incomplete. I'm quite a bit different today. In that book I dealt with recovery from depression. But then I found I had a more extensive problem [alcoholism], and that recovery, which took years, was very challenging.
The Aldrin Collection
Buzz Aldrin
.WSJ: You say that people often took advantage of your fame. Were you ever able to turn that fame to your advantage?
Mr. Aldrin: Probably not as much as others have. I was essentially non-functional from ages 45 to 55. I lost out on a good number of opportunities.
WSJ: If you were in charge of setting the nation's space agenda, what would it be and how would you accomplish it?
Mr. Aldrin: I wouldn't want to be in that position of having to explain everything all the time to Congress, and being beholden to the wishes of corporate America. But if I could be an advisor, I would say that we need to develop a lifting body, a spacecraft that, as it returns to the atmosphere, has lift and can maneuver and then can line up on a runaway. That's the way we've been doing it since the Wright brothers. I'm in favor of a flying spacecraft, and it's not in our future right now.
WSJ: Do we need a settlement on Mars?
Mr. Aldrin: Yes, we shouldn't be dependent on a program that can be cancelled once we've gone and returned. We need to start something that has a self-sustaining nature. Six people can't get that done. But 40, 50 or 60 can. You need to build a thriving, self-sustaining settlement that doesn't need extensive re-supply from Earth.
WSJ: Do astronauts today have a chance for true exploration?
Mr. Aldrin: I hope they will. I hope they'll have a different long-term objective than going to the moon a couple of times, retiring and playing golf. We ought to have settler astronauts who can touch down on Mars by 2029 or 2031, or certainly by 2035, which will be 66 years after we landed on the moon.
.WSJ: Does the recession put an end to your dream of space tourism?
Mr. Aldrin: No. We need something to inspire hope in people. This country is lagging in engineering, science and math. We need to inspire teachers and students to get into productive areas, not just thinking about making money. That's the evil that got us into this situation. We're in deep trouble because of greedy people who used the system only to promote themselves.
WSJ: Have we lost our willingness to take risks?
Mr. Aldrin: You bet. It's all about, what's in it for me? But this is an opportunity for us to rid ourselves of that. Instead of debt, let's have inspiration and achievement.
WSJ: Why do people sometimes believe that science and religious faith are incompatible?
Mr. Aldrin: I don't know. One of the best guides of philosophy is Einstein's essays in which he talks about religions of fear that evolve into religions of morals and ethics. Then he discusses a higher level of cosmic awareness of the universe, and the possibility of dealing with other living creatures in an increasingly mature way. Unfortunately, we aren't very mature, for selfish, greedy reasons.
Write to Jeffrey A. Trachtenberg at jeffrey.trachtenberg@wsj.com
Buzz Aldrin: We need to forget about the Moon and go to Mars.
As the second man to ever walk on the moon (he stepped out of the lunar module about 15 minutes after Neil Armstrong), Buzz Aldrin knows a little something about space exploration, about bold ambitions and great risks. Now, Aldrin is speaking out about NASA, and declaring loudly that the space agency has lost its boldness.
The next step in humanity’s exploration of space must be a bootprint on Mars, he says.
Says Aldrin: “As I approach my 80th birthday, I’m in no mood to keep my mouth shut any longer when I see NASA heading down the wrong path. And that’s exactly what I see today. The agency’s current Vision for Space Exploration will waste decades and hundreds of billions of dollars trying to reach the moon by 2020—a glorified rehash of what we did 40 years ago. Instead of a steppingstone to Mars, NASA’s current lunar plan is a detour” [Popular Mechanics].
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4322647.html
Aldrin says that while the moon is interesting scientifically, it’s not promising for commercial activities. Mars, on the other hand, holds much more potential for a human colony, Aldrin says. “It’s much more terrestrial. It has a thin atmosphere and a day/night cycle that is very similar to ours. It has seasons. Russia perhaps is still entertaining the possibility that the moons of Mars might have access to ice or water” [The New York Times], says Aldrin.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/magazine/21fob-q4-t.html?_r=1
His comments come at a significant time, as the Obama administration recently ordered a review of NASA’s human spaceflight program. Aldrin hopes that the review committee will listen to him and other NASA critics and scrap the Ares rockets currently under development, which are expected to bring the next generation of astronauts into space. It would be cheaper, Aldrin says, to adapt existing satellite-launching rockets to carry a crew capsule, which would allow NASA to spend its time, money, and energy on establishing a Martian outpost.
Taking a lesson from the ups and downs of NASA funding over the years, Aldrin says “we shouldn’t be dependent on a program that can be cancelled once we’ve gone and returned. We need to start something that has a self-sustaining nature. Six people can’t get that done. But 40, 50 or 60 can. You need to build a thriving, self-sustaining settlement that doesn’t need extensive re-supply from Earth” [The Wall Street Journal]. Aldrin says we ought to send the first settlers to Mars by 2035, which would be 66 years after the first steps were taken on the moon.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124586953937749041.html
=========================================================================
Technology Patents
Aldrin Permanent Space Station
By SABRA CHARTRAND
Published: February 15, 1993
EDWIN E. (BUZZ) ALDRIN JR., who walked on the moon as an
astronaut in 1969, last week received a patent for a permanent space
station he designed alone in his home office. Mr. Aldrin, who went to
the moon with Neil Armstrong on the Apollo 11 mission, wants his
space station to be the core of a "complete family of spacecraft that
support it."
The United States has issued more than five million patents since
1790, but space stations joined the ranks only in 1964. About two
dozen such patents have been issued, most for stations that must be
launched in pieces and assembled in space or that are small enough to
be carried aloft inside the space shuttle.
Mr. Aldrin's design, though large enough for a crew of 8 to 10
astronauts, can be launched in one piece and then unfolded in space.
But he said it would rely on "a larger launch vehicle like the Saturn 5
rocket," which the United States no longer uses. He hopes for
eventual cooperation with the Russian space program, which still has
a powerful rocket capable of putting a heavy payload into space.
A Tube Shape
Mr. Aldrin's space station is shaped like a tube with cylindrical crosssections
that house pressurized modules of living quarters and
laboratories; the modular construction means it can be expanded in
size. The interconnected modules are surrounded by struts and
trusswork in a "cube octahedron," having eight sides, to protect them
from things like collisions with docking spacecraft.
The design also calls for fixed solar panels.
"It's a lot tighter, and there's less movement" than in space stations
with solar panels that rotate, he said. He contends that rotating
panels cause too much vibration. "Whenever panels move, it disturbs
the micro-gravity, and that interferes with scientific experiments and
activity."
His plan is quite different from the linear architecture of the space
station Freedom, which the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration plans to start launching, in pieces, in 1996. Freedom
also uses rotating solar panels and is configured so that shuttles can
dock with it directly.
Mr. Aldrin's space station has 14 berthing zones for small transfer
spacecraft that would travel between it and larger craft like a shuttle.
Mr. Aldrin also envisions other smaller, unmanned stations devoted
to zero-gravity experiments deployed around his space station. He
acknowledges that manufacture of his space station is probably a long
way off, but he says he may market his design as a toy. He received
patent 5,184,789.
============================================================
I had a splendid career at NASA as an astronaut in the Gemini and Apollo programs. The capstone, of course, was my moonwalk on the Sea of Tranquility 40 years ago. I have only two regrets from my NASA days, and both were my own fault: I failed to speak out when I saw bad decisions being made. The first came in 1966, when NASA, in a fit of excessive caution, canceled the Astronaut Maneuvering Unit (AMU), the Buck Rogers–style jet backpack I was scheduled to try out on Gemini 12. Despite difficulties with the AMU on Gemini 9, I was very confident I could make it work. But like a good astronaut, I kept my mouth shut, and I’ve regretted it ever since. As it turned out, it took 18 years for NASA to develop another jet pack, the Manned Maneuvering Unit, used on three space shuttle missions in 1984.
My second bout of wishy-washiness, however, had more far-reaching implications. In the early ’70s I was part of a NASA committee to establish the basic architecture of the space shuttle. One of the approaches we considered was a manned booster that would have its own pilot and glide back to the Cape after giving the orbiter its initial push. It was a silly idea—way too expensive. But I didn’t object strongly enough, and we wasted a year and millions of dollars on it.
That delay and expense eventually forced a hurried decision. Instead of the customary liquid-fuel boosters like the Atlas, Titan and Saturn, which had flawless track records on Mercury, Gemini and Apollo flights, the shuttle committee decided to go with cheaper solid-fuel boosters, which had never been used for manned spaceflight. Solid-fuel rockets are lower in performance and can’t be shut off once ignited—and when something goes wrong, it tends to be catastrophic. Fifteen years after that decision, a solid-booster failure brought down Challenger, and the unhappy legacy of solid boosters lives on today in the underpowered, vibration-prone Ares I, the crew-launch rocket NASA is developing.
As I approach my 80th birthday, I’m in no mood to keep my mouth shut any longer when I see NASA heading down the wrong path. And that’s exactly what I see today. The agency’s current Vision for Space Exploration will waste decades and hundreds of billions of dollars trying to reach the moon by 2020—a glorified rehash of what we did 40 years ago. Instead of a steppingstone to Mars, NASA’s current lunar plan is a detour. It will derail our Mars effort, siphoning off money and engineering talent for the next two decades. If we aspire to a long-term human presence on Mars—and I believe that should be our overarching goal for the foreseeable future—we must drastically change our focus.
Here’s my plan, which I call the Unified Space Vision. It’s a blueprint that will maintain U.S. leadership in human spaceflight, avoid a counterproductive space race with China to be second back to the moon, and lead to a permanent American-led presence on Mars by 2035 at the latest. That date happens to be 66 years after Neil Armstrong and I first landed on the moon—just as our landing was 66 years after the Wright Brothers’ first flight.
NASA’s looming short-term dilemma is the five-year gap between the shuttle’s scheduled retirement next year and the debut of the Ares I rocket and the new Orion spacecraft, in 2015. During that hiatus, we’ll be writing checks to the Russians to let our astronauts hitch rides on Soyuz rockets to the International Space Station, in which we’ve invested $100 billion. I find that simply unacceptable.
READ THE REST AT http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4322647.html
=============================================================================
Forty summers ago, the world was transfixed by the sight of you walking on the moon. Have we made any progress since the Apollo 11 flight?
Not a whole lot. We shifted our attention to low-earth orbit.
Meaning the shuttle program, which is about to end?
We’ve been concentrating on the shuttle, the space station and laying the groundwork for returning to the moon. The disturbing part is that, all this time, Russia has been concentrating on Phobos, a moon of Mars, and a number of us have recently realized just how significant that would be as a stepping stone to Mars.
Do you think Mars has more to offer than the moon?
Yes, much more. It’s much more terrestrial. It has a thin atmosphere and a day/night cycle that is very similar to ours. It has seasons. Russia perhaps is still entertaining the possibility that the moons of Mars might have access to ice or water.
Are you saying the moon has become passé?
It is not promising for commercial activities. It’s got science, it may have strategic values but I don’t believe it’s a requirement for Americans to be present to take advantage of the resources. Their viability can be determined by robots.
Are the days of American pre-eminence in space over?
Yes.
Is it true that Buzz Lightyear, the cartoon astronaut, was named after you?
Apparently, but there’s no evidence in my bank account to substantiate that.
Do you know Charles Bolden, the former astronaut who has been nominated by President Obama to head NASA?
I know him quite well. I was a little puzzled when I realized that his major champion is Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, who flew with him.
Right, Nelson was a congressman when he flew on the shuttle. But isn’t that a good thing, making it easier for Bolden to muster Congressional support for NASA? Why were you puzzled?
I’m in favor of changing the destination of humans. There are a lot of manned missions that can be done, but not in the direction of the moon. I am not sure about Bill Nelson. I haven’t heard him say, “Let’s junk the NASA plan to send humans to the moon.” He’s not about to say that. That would not be very popular.
You were the second person to walk on the moon, after Neil Armstrong. Was it annoying to go second?
No. At that time I wasn’t looking for more laurels.
You gave yourself communion on the surface of the moon. Are you still a churchgoer?
No. My Sunday mornings are spent in a recovery meeting in Pacific Palisades.
In your new memoir, “Magnificent Desolation,” which comes out this week, you recount a period of ruinous drinking and clinical depression following your time in space.
I inherited depression from my mother’s side of the family. Her father committed suicide. She committed suicide the year before I went to the moon.
Was your mother’s maiden name really Marion Moon?
Yes. I didn’t feel NASA needed to know that. Somebody would think I was trying to get favored treatment because my ancestors had the name Moon. And that’s a joke.
Do you find it odd that we’re observing the 40th anniversary of both the moonwalk and Woodstock?
I don’t think I’m going to journey to Woodstock.
What sort of music do you like?
I just did a rap session with Snoop Dogg and a rap composition called “Rocket Experience.” It’s going to be an online video. The Web site is funnyordie.com.
Do you actually sing on the video?
I relate. It’s not singing, it’s rapping.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTKedyQQkZQ
How old are you now?
On July 20, the anniversary of landing on the moon, I will be precisely 79 and a half. It’s nice to be on this side of troubled waters.
INTERVIEW HAS BEEN CONDENSED AND EDITED.
==========================================================
Forty years ago next month, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon. Now Mr. Aldrin, 79, has authored a memoir, "Magnificent Desolation."
Buzz Aldrin's moon walk July 20, 1969.
.The book begins with that historic walk ("a virginal experience"), segues to Mr. Aldrin's battle with alcoholism that followed ("Beverly pleaded with me to stop drinking"), and then explores the possibilities of a meaningful second act in life (as a space exploration advocate, "I was sixty-nine years of age, but I felt more energized than ever").
The Apollo 11's lunar landing on July 20, 1969 transformed both Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Aldrin into national heroes. Mr. Aldrin's walk on the Sea of Tranquility followed Mr. Armstrong's by about 20 minutes. But Mr. Aldrin also paints a somewhat withering self-portrait of an intelligent man with a substantial ego who grappled, sometimes unsuccessfully, with career and life disappointments.
This is Mr. Aldrin's second memoir, which he wrote with Ken Abraham. His first, "Return to Earth" (1973), discussed in part his decision in late 1971 to seek psychiatric help for depression. Mr. Aldrin was interviewed by telephone.
WSJ: What prompted you to write this book?
Buzz Aldrin: The first book, "Return to Earth," told the story of the challenges I faced. But it was incomplete. I'm quite a bit different today. In that book I dealt with recovery from depression. But then I found I had a more extensive problem [alcoholism], and that recovery, which took years, was very challenging.
The Aldrin Collection
Buzz Aldrin
.WSJ: You say that people often took advantage of your fame. Were you ever able to turn that fame to your advantage?
Mr. Aldrin: Probably not as much as others have. I was essentially non-functional from ages 45 to 55. I lost out on a good number of opportunities.
WSJ: If you were in charge of setting the nation's space agenda, what would it be and how would you accomplish it?
Mr. Aldrin: I wouldn't want to be in that position of having to explain everything all the time to Congress, and being beholden to the wishes of corporate America. But if I could be an advisor, I would say that we need to develop a lifting body, a spacecraft that, as it returns to the atmosphere, has lift and can maneuver and then can line up on a runaway. That's the way we've been doing it since the Wright brothers. I'm in favor of a flying spacecraft, and it's not in our future right now.
WSJ: Do we need a settlement on Mars?
Mr. Aldrin: Yes, we shouldn't be dependent on a program that can be cancelled once we've gone and returned. We need to start something that has a self-sustaining nature. Six people can't get that done. But 40, 50 or 60 can. You need to build a thriving, self-sustaining settlement that doesn't need extensive re-supply from Earth.
WSJ: Do astronauts today have a chance for true exploration?
Mr. Aldrin: I hope they will. I hope they'll have a different long-term objective than going to the moon a couple of times, retiring and playing golf. We ought to have settler astronauts who can touch down on Mars by 2029 or 2031, or certainly by 2035, which will be 66 years after we landed on the moon.
.WSJ: Does the recession put an end to your dream of space tourism?
Mr. Aldrin: No. We need something to inspire hope in people. This country is lagging in engineering, science and math. We need to inspire teachers and students to get into productive areas, not just thinking about making money. That's the evil that got us into this situation. We're in deep trouble because of greedy people who used the system only to promote themselves.
WSJ: Have we lost our willingness to take risks?
Mr. Aldrin: You bet. It's all about, what's in it for me? But this is an opportunity for us to rid ourselves of that. Instead of debt, let's have inspiration and achievement.
WSJ: Why do people sometimes believe that science and religious faith are incompatible?
Mr. Aldrin: I don't know. One of the best guides of philosophy is Einstein's essays in which he talks about religions of fear that evolve into religions of morals and ethics. Then he discusses a higher level of cosmic awareness of the universe, and the possibility of dealing with other living creatures in an increasingly mature way. Unfortunately, we aren't very mature, for selfish, greedy reasons.
Write to Jeffrey A. Trachtenberg at jeffrey.trachtenberg@wsj.com
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Monday, June 22, 2009
Monday, June 22, 2009
This gallery highlights a few particularly tough species of bacteria and archaea, a lesser-appreciated but equally-vast branch of the organismal tree.
Once upon a time, scientists routinely found life in places where it wasn’t supposed to exist. That doesn’t happen anymore, and not because the pace of discovery has slowed. If anything, it’s accelerated. It’s simply become clear that life can exist almost anywhere on Earth.After 3 billion years of evolution, life has flowed into every last nook and cranny, from the bottom of the sea to the upper edge of the stratosphere. From blazing heat and freezing cold to pure acidity and atomic bomb-caliber radiation, there’s seemingly no stress so great that some bug can’t handle it.This gallery highlights a few particularly tough species of bacteria and archaea, a lesser-appreciated but equally-vast branch of the organismal tree. Until the late 1970s, archaea was lumped in with bacteria, a confusion that speaks to the embryonic state of human microbial knowledge. Less than 1 percent of Earth’s microorganisms have been identified, and most of those won’t even grow in a lab.In some cases, the bugs are labeled as being uniquely durable, but the labels almost certainly won’t stick. Hardly a month passes without some newly characterized species setting a new microbial benchmark. Indeed, the very concept of species might not apply. Bacteria and archaea exchange genes “horizontally,” without the need for reproduction. It’s as if, while encountering someone on the street, you could trade for whatever genes came in handy at the time. This fungibility makes a mockery of old-fashioned, animal-based notions of species, and some microbiologists want to abandon the concept altogether.Speaking of the common gut bacteria Escherichia coli, biology pioneer Lynn Margulis once said, “If you put a particular plasmid into E. coli, all of a sudden you have Klebsiella and not E. coli. You’ve changed not only the species, but the genus. It’s like changing a person to a chimpanzee. Can you imagine doing that, putting a chimpanzee in the refrigerator, and getting him out the next morning, and now he’s a person?”It’s pretty hard to imagine, and the idea of microbes as an Earth-spanning ur-organism might take some getting used to. In the meantime, here are some examples of life’s awesome adaptability.Image: WikiMedia Commons/U.S. National Parks ServiceUpdate, 11:30am ET: The post originally mischaracterized archaea as being far less complicated than bacteria, and bacteria as possessing a cell nucleus — neither of which is true. They differ from each other profoundly, but not in ways that lend themselves to such hierarchical judgments.One thing bacteria and archaea have in common, however, is the lack of a nucleus or other membrane-bound cellular substructures. Only eukaryotic cells, which compose the bodies of plants, animals and fungi, have such structures.Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Posted by Freddallas at 1:13 PM 0 comments
And then the rest of the email is
This gallery highlights a few particularly tough species of bacteria and archaea, a lesser-appreciated but equally-vast branch of the organismal tree.
Once upon a time, scientists routinely found life in places where it wasn’t supposed to exist. That doesn’t happen anymore, and not because the pace of discovery has slowed. If anything, it’s accelerated. It’s simply become clear that life can exist almost anywhere on Earth.After 3 billion years of evolution, life has flowed into every last nook and cranny, from the bottom of the sea to the upper edge of the stratosphere. From blazing heat and freezing cold to pure acidity and atomic bomb-caliber radiation, there’s seemingly no stress so great that some bug can’t handle it.This gallery highlights a few particularly tough species of bacteria and archaea, a lesser-appreciated but equally-vast branch of the organismal tree. Until the late 1970s, archaea was lumped in with bacteria, a confusion that speaks to the embryonic state of human microbial knowledge. Less than 1 percent of Earth’s microorganisms have been identified, and most of those won’t even grow in a lab.In some cases, the bugs are labeled as being uniquely durable, but the labels almost certainly won’t stick. Hardly a month passes without some newly characterized species setting a new microbial benchmark. Indeed, the very concept of species might not apply. Bacteria and archaea exchange genes “horizontally,” without the need for reproduction. It’s as if, while encountering someone on the street, you could trade for whatever genes came in handy at the time. This fungibility makes a mockery of old-fashioned, animal-based notions of species, and some microbiologists want to abandon the concept altogether.Speaking of the common gut bacteria Escherichia coli, biology pioneer Lynn Margulis once said, “If you put a particular plasmid into E. coli, all of a sudden you have Klebsiella and not E. coli. You’ve changed not only the species, but the genus. It’s like changing a person to a chimpanzee. Can you imagine doing that, putting a chimpanzee in the refrigerator, and getting him out the next morning, and now he’s a person?”It’s pretty hard to imagine, and the idea of microbes as an Earth-spanning ur-organism might take some getting used to. In the meantime, here are some examples of life’s awesome adaptability.Image: WikiMedia Commons/U.S. National Parks ServiceUpdate, 11:30am ET: The post originally mischaracterized archaea as being far less complicated than bacteria, and bacteria as possessing a cell nucleus — neither of which is true. They differ from each other profoundly, but not in ways that lend themselves to such hierarchical judgments.One thing bacteria and archaea have in common, however, is the lack of a nucleus or other membrane-bound cellular substructures. Only eukaryotic cells, which compose the bodies of plants, animals and fungi, have such structures.Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Posted by Freddallas at 1:13 PM 0 comments
And then the rest of the email is
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Update: US Space Mission. Where are we going with NASA? I remember watching LIVE the TV broadcast of our first landing on the Moon on July 21, 1969..
Forty Years Later, Where are we going with all this?After a lengthy fueling delay because of stormy weather, launch of the shuttle Endeavour on a space station mission was scrubbed Wednesday when a presumably repaired hydrogen vent line umbilical began leaking potentially dangerous vapor for the second launch try in a row. Endeavour will be grounded until at least July 11 when the next shuttle/space station launch window opens. There are only eight remaining shuttle fights on the schedule this year to finish the construction of the International Space Station, which will be managed by Russian and the European Space Agency. Next year the thirty year old shuttle craft will be off to museums and exhibitions, and the manned USA race into Space will have ended. Later today — if weather conditions and hardware permit — NASA will launch its much anticipated and deeply imaginative Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), the first American spacecraft of any kind to make a lunar trip since 1999. Not only will the LRO help us study the moon in greater detail than ever before, it should also give us our first look at the six Apollo landing sites since we abandoned the historic campgrounds in December 1972 -- 37 years ago. NASA plans to return to Space with expendable rockets, known as Ares, and a beefed-up Apollo-style capsule called Orion that can ferry crews to the moon and other destinations. Orion's debut flight to the space station is targeted for 2015 -- five years after the shuttle stops flying -- 43 years after we left the Moon.
However, a presidential panel on Wednesday began looking at alternative ways to get there and whether the United States should even go back to the Moon - been there, done that.
In this decade, the moon has once again become the hot place to go. Three countries with little spacefaring history — Japan, China and India — have all sent probes moonward since 2007, and China in particular has made it clear that it plans to return, first with more robot ships, then with astronauts. Time Magazine this week has a feature on these other space programs: (See a photo-essay of the world's most competitive space programs.)In 2004, the U.S. restarted its own lunar program when President George W. Bush announced a new commitment to have astronauts back on the moon by 2020 and on Mars in the years after. There was surely some political motivation in Bush's election-year proposal, but it was followed up by hardheaded planning and real NASA action.With the shuttles scheduled to be mothballed by 2010, the space agency has committed itself to building and flying a lunar-capable manned ship by 2015, and though the Obama Administration is reconsidering the entire lunar program, so far it's still on track.The Obama review panel, led by Norman R. Augustine, former chief executive of Lockheed Martin, was appointed by the Obama administration to re-evaluate NASA’s human spaceflight program and make recommendations by the end of August. The daylong meeting on Wednesday, at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, was the first of four planned public sessions.Senator Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat who is a leading lawmaker on NASA issues, told the panel that its recommendations would probably shape the United States’ space program for years to come and that supporters of any competing vision would be hard pressed to gain support in Congress.As the panel held its meeting to explore NASA’s future, technical problems were showing up in the degrading the accuracy of signals from the last GPS satellite launched by the Pentagon, sparking concerns among U.S. military and aerospace industry officials that the next generation of the widely used satellites could face similar troubles.The Air Force's Southern California space acquisition center on Tuesday announced that a Global Positioning System satellite, manufactured by Lockheed Martin Corp. and launched in March, is experiencing performance problems in orbit.It hasn't become part of the "operational constellation" of more than two dozen other GPS satellites, and is slated to undergo a battery of tests expected to stretch through October to try to resolve the problems, according to an Air Force news release.The GPS system, which serves both military and civilian users, provides precise time and location coordinates for everything from military missile launches and "smart" bombs to automated bank-teller machines to aircraft, ships and everyday vehicles.The Lockheed satellite is the first to include a new civilian frequency -- dubbed L5 -- designed for, among other things, use by future nationwide air-traffic control systems. But that signal, part of test package, apparently is interfering with other signals from the satellite and reducing their accuracy, according to industry and Air Force officials. The degraded signals are accurate only to about 20 feet, versus about two feet for typical GPS signals, industry officials said.The issue is significant, according to these officials, because it could complicate deployment of a new family of Boeing Co. GPS satellites currently being built that also feature the L5 signal.Already years behind schedule and hundreds of millions of dollars over budget, the 12 satellites, which are scheduled to replace satellites currently in orbit, could face further testing and delays to ensure that they are free of interference problems. The Boeing satellites have a history of quality-control and manufacturing problems unrelated to the latest concerns.In its release, the Air Force said the routine in-orbit checkout of the suspect Lockheed satellite revealed that some signals "were inconsistent" with comparable GPS satellites. The Air Force also said upcoming tests will include simulations and "testing of real-life GPS receiver equipment to the greatest extent possible" to prevent "inadvertent impacts to GPS users."So, the question remains for both NASA and you in the car, Where do we go from here.FD.
Update: US Space Mission. Where are we going with NASA? I remember watching LIVE the TV broadcast of our first landing on the Moon on July 21, 1969..
Forty Years Later, Where are we going with all this?After a lengthy fueling delay because of stormy weather, launch of the shuttle Endeavour on a space station mission was scrubbed Wednesday when a presumably repaired hydrogen vent line umbilical began leaking potentially dangerous vapor for the second launch try in a row. Endeavour will be grounded until at least July 11 when the next shuttle/space station launch window opens. There are only eight remaining shuttle fights on the schedule this year to finish the construction of the International Space Station, which will be managed by Russian and the European Space Agency. Next year the thirty year old shuttle craft will be off to museums and exhibitions, and the manned USA race into Space will have ended. Later today — if weather conditions and hardware permit — NASA will launch its much anticipated and deeply imaginative Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), the first American spacecraft of any kind to make a lunar trip since 1999. Not only will the LRO help us study the moon in greater detail than ever before, it should also give us our first look at the six Apollo landing sites since we abandoned the historic campgrounds in December 1972 -- 37 years ago. NASA plans to return to Space with expendable rockets, known as Ares, and a beefed-up Apollo-style capsule called Orion that can ferry crews to the moon and other destinations. Orion's debut flight to the space station is targeted for 2015 -- five years after the shuttle stops flying -- 43 years after we left the Moon.
However, a presidential panel on Wednesday began looking at alternative ways to get there and whether the United States should even go back to the Moon - been there, done that.
In this decade, the moon has once again become the hot place to go. Three countries with little spacefaring history — Japan, China and India — have all sent probes moonward since 2007, and China in particular has made it clear that it plans to return, first with more robot ships, then with astronauts. Time Magazine this week has a feature on these other space programs: (See a photo-essay of the world's most competitive space programs.)In 2004, the U.S. restarted its own lunar program when President George W. Bush announced a new commitment to have astronauts back on the moon by 2020 and on Mars in the years after. There was surely some political motivation in Bush's election-year proposal, but it was followed up by hardheaded planning and real NASA action.With the shuttles scheduled to be mothballed by 2010, the space agency has committed itself to building and flying a lunar-capable manned ship by 2015, and though the Obama Administration is reconsidering the entire lunar program, so far it's still on track.The Obama review panel, led by Norman R. Augustine, former chief executive of Lockheed Martin, was appointed by the Obama administration to re-evaluate NASA’s human spaceflight program and make recommendations by the end of August. The daylong meeting on Wednesday, at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, was the first of four planned public sessions.Senator Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat who is a leading lawmaker on NASA issues, told the panel that its recommendations would probably shape the United States’ space program for years to come and that supporters of any competing vision would be hard pressed to gain support in Congress.As the panel held its meeting to explore NASA’s future, technical problems were showing up in the degrading the accuracy of signals from the last GPS satellite launched by the Pentagon, sparking concerns among U.S. military and aerospace industry officials that the next generation of the widely used satellites could face similar troubles.The Air Force's Southern California space acquisition center on Tuesday announced that a Global Positioning System satellite, manufactured by Lockheed Martin Corp. and launched in March, is experiencing performance problems in orbit.It hasn't become part of the "operational constellation" of more than two dozen other GPS satellites, and is slated to undergo a battery of tests expected to stretch through October to try to resolve the problems, according to an Air Force news release.The GPS system, which serves both military and civilian users, provides precise time and location coordinates for everything from military missile launches and "smart" bombs to automated bank-teller machines to aircraft, ships and everyday vehicles.The Lockheed satellite is the first to include a new civilian frequency -- dubbed L5 -- designed for, among other things, use by future nationwide air-traffic control systems. But that signal, part of test package, apparently is interfering with other signals from the satellite and reducing their accuracy, according to industry and Air Force officials. The degraded signals are accurate only to about 20 feet, versus about two feet for typical GPS signals, industry officials said.The issue is significant, according to these officials, because it could complicate deployment of a new family of Boeing Co. GPS satellites currently being built that also feature the L5 signal.Already years behind schedule and hundreds of millions of dollars over budget, the 12 satellites, which are scheduled to replace satellites currently in orbit, could face further testing and delays to ensure that they are free of interference problems. The Boeing satellites have a history of quality-control and manufacturing problems unrelated to the latest concerns.In its release, the Air Force said the routine in-orbit checkout of the suspect Lockheed satellite revealed that some signals "were inconsistent" with comparable GPS satellites. The Air Force also said upcoming tests will include simulations and "testing of real-life GPS receiver equipment to the greatest extent possible" to prevent "inadvertent impacts to GPS users."So, the question remains for both NASA and you in the car, Where do we go from here.FD.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
What books would be in your school library for this class?
Book overview of RED MARS -
Chronicles the colonization of Mars in the year 2026. In his most ambitious project to date, award-winning author Kim Stanley Robinson utilizes years of research and cutting-edge science in the first of three novels that will chronicle the colonization of Mars. For eons, sandstorms have swept the barren desolate landscape of the red planet. For centuries, Mars has beckoned to mankind to come and conquer its hostile climate. Now, in the year 2026, a group of one hundred colonists is about to fulfill that destiny. John Boone, Maya Toitavna, Frank Chalmers, and Arkady Bogdanov lead a mission whose ultimate goal is the terraforming of Mars. For some, Mars will become a passion driving them to daring acts of courage and madness; for others it offers and opportunity to strip the planet of its riches. And for the genetic "alchemists, " Mars presents a chance to create a biomedical miracle, a breakthrough that could change all we know about life, and death. The colonists place giant satellite mirrors in Martian orbit to reflect light to the planets surface. Black dust sprinkled on the polar caps will capture warmth and melt the ice. And massive tunnels, kilometers in depth, will be drilled into the Martian mantle to create stupendous vents of hot gases. Against this backdrop of epic upheaval, rivalries, loves, and friendships will form and fall to pieces, for there are those who will fight to the death to prevent Mars from ever being changed. Brilliantly imagined, breathtaking in scope and ingenuity, Red Mars is an epic scientific saga, chronicling the next step in human evolution and creating a world in its entirety. Red Mars shows us a future, with both glory and tarnish, that awes with complexity and inspires with vision.
http://books.google.com/books?id=QqR301wsX-wC&dq=subject:%22+Science+Fiction+%22&lr=&as_brr=3&rview=1&source=gbs_navlinks_s
Book overview of GREEN MARS -
Nearly a generation has passed since the first pioneers landed, but the transformation of Mars to an Earth-like planet has just begun. In Green Mars the colonists will attempt to turn the red planet into a lush garden for humanity. They will bombard the atmosphere with ice meteorites to add moisture. They will seed the red deserts with genetically engineered plants. Then they will tap the boiling planetary core to warm the planet's frozen surface. But their heroic efforts don't go unchallenged. For their plan to transform Mars is opposed by those determined to preserve the hostile and barren beauty of Mars. Led by rebels like Peter Clayborne, these young people are the first generation of children born on Mars, and they will be joined in their violent struggle by original settlers Maya Toitovna, Simon Frasier, and Sax Russell. Against this cosmic backdrop, passions, rivalries, and friendships will explode in a story as big as the planet itself. A novel of breathtaking scope and imagination, of lyric intensity and social resonance, Kim Stanley Robinson employs years of research and state-of-the-art science to create a prophetic vision of where humanity is headed - and of what life will be like on another world.
http://books.google.com/books?id=GTX6YdPc954C&dq=subject:%22+Science+Fiction+%22&lr=&as_brr=3&rview=1&source=gbs_navlinks_s
Book overview - Mars Life
Jamie Waterman discovered the cliff dwelling on Mars, and the fact that an intelligent race lived on the red planet sixty-five million years ago, only to be driven into extinction by the crash of a giant meteor. Now the exploration of Mars is itself under threat of extinction, as the ultraconservative New Morality movement gains control of the U.S. government and cuts off all funding for the Mars program.Meanwhile, Carter Carleton, an anthropologist who was driven from his university post by unproven charges of rape, has started to dig up the remains of a Martian village. Science and politics clash on two worlds as Jamie desperately tries to save the Mars program and uncover who the vanished Martians were.
http://books.google.com/books?id=IwMaJpxRZ2MC&dq=subject:%22+Science+Fiction+%22&lr=&as_brr=3&rview=1&source=gbs_navlinks_s
Chronicles the colonization of Mars in the year 2026. In his most ambitious project to date, award-winning author Kim Stanley Robinson utilizes years of research and cutting-edge science in the first of three novels that will chronicle the colonization of Mars. For eons, sandstorms have swept the barren desolate landscape of the red planet. For centuries, Mars has beckoned to mankind to come and conquer its hostile climate. Now, in the year 2026, a group of one hundred colonists is about to fulfill that destiny. John Boone, Maya Toitavna, Frank Chalmers, and Arkady Bogdanov lead a mission whose ultimate goal is the terraforming of Mars. For some, Mars will become a passion driving them to daring acts of courage and madness; for others it offers and opportunity to strip the planet of its riches. And for the genetic "alchemists, " Mars presents a chance to create a biomedical miracle, a breakthrough that could change all we know about life, and death. The colonists place giant satellite mirrors in Martian orbit to reflect light to the planets surface. Black dust sprinkled on the polar caps will capture warmth and melt the ice. And massive tunnels, kilometers in depth, will be drilled into the Martian mantle to create stupendous vents of hot gases. Against this backdrop of epic upheaval, rivalries, loves, and friendships will form and fall to pieces, for there are those who will fight to the death to prevent Mars from ever being changed. Brilliantly imagined, breathtaking in scope and ingenuity, Red Mars is an epic scientific saga, chronicling the next step in human evolution and creating a world in its entirety. Red Mars shows us a future, with both glory and tarnish, that awes with complexity and inspires with vision.
http://books.google.com/books?id=QqR301wsX-wC&dq=subject:%22+Science+Fiction+%22&lr=&as_brr=3&rview=1&source=gbs_navlinks_s
Book overview of GREEN MARS -
Nearly a generation has passed since the first pioneers landed, but the transformation of Mars to an Earth-like planet has just begun. In Green Mars the colonists will attempt to turn the red planet into a lush garden for humanity. They will bombard the atmosphere with ice meteorites to add moisture. They will seed the red deserts with genetically engineered plants. Then they will tap the boiling planetary core to warm the planet's frozen surface. But their heroic efforts don't go unchallenged. For their plan to transform Mars is opposed by those determined to preserve the hostile and barren beauty of Mars. Led by rebels like Peter Clayborne, these young people are the first generation of children born on Mars, and they will be joined in their violent struggle by original settlers Maya Toitovna, Simon Frasier, and Sax Russell. Against this cosmic backdrop, passions, rivalries, and friendships will explode in a story as big as the planet itself. A novel of breathtaking scope and imagination, of lyric intensity and social resonance, Kim Stanley Robinson employs years of research and state-of-the-art science to create a prophetic vision of where humanity is headed - and of what life will be like on another world.
http://books.google.com/books?id=GTX6YdPc954C&dq=subject:%22+Science+Fiction+%22&lr=&as_brr=3&rview=1&source=gbs_navlinks_s
Book overview - Mars Life
Jamie Waterman discovered the cliff dwelling on Mars, and the fact that an intelligent race lived on the red planet sixty-five million years ago, only to be driven into extinction by the crash of a giant meteor. Now the exploration of Mars is itself under threat of extinction, as the ultraconservative New Morality movement gains control of the U.S. government and cuts off all funding for the Mars program.Meanwhile, Carter Carleton, an anthropologist who was driven from his university post by unproven charges of rape, has started to dig up the remains of a Martian village. Science and politics clash on two worlds as Jamie desperately tries to save the Mars program and uncover who the vanished Martians were.
http://books.google.com/books?id=IwMaJpxRZ2MC&dq=subject:%22+Science+Fiction+%22&lr=&as_brr=3&rview=1&source=gbs_navlinks_s
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Rebooting Resembles February Event
PASADENA, Calif. -- NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter is in safe mode and in communications with Earth after an unexpected rebooting of its computer Wednesday evening, June 3.
The spontaneous reboot resembles a Feb. 23 event on the spacecraft.
Engineers concluded the most likely cause for that event was a cosmic ray or solar particle hitting electronics and causing an erroneous voltage reading.
Jim Erickson, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter project manager at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., said, "The spacecraft is sending down high-rate engineering data, power positive, batteries fully charged, sun pointed and thermally safe.The flight team is cautiously bringing the orbiter back to normal operations. We should be resuming our exploration of Mars by next week."
The reboot occurred at approximately 6:10 p.m. PDT (9:10 p.m. EDT) on June 3.
This is the sixth time since the spacecraft began its primary science phase in November 2006 that it has entered safe mode, which is its programmed precaution when it senses a condition for which it does not know a more specific response.###Guy Webster 818-354-6278Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Californiaguy.webster@jpl.nasa.govNEWS RELEASE: 2009-095
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Student Reports - Submit yours to FREDDALLAS@AOL.COM
How does the Moon affect the tides on Earth?
How do the tides affect life in the bays and estuaries of Earth?
Does Mar’s Moon affect it in a similar way?
The gravitational attraction between the Earth and the Moon causes the tides on Earth. Tides are the rising of Earth’s water surfaces. The tides raise the water surfaces and then the water surfaces lower because of the changing position of the Moon relative to the Earth and also because the Earth rotates.
The tides affect life in the bays and estuaries on Earth as the life (organisms)present In the bays and estuaries that exist between the high water line and the low water line have to adapt to being out of the water part of the time and being covered by water at other times. Also some of these organisms provide food for humans and thus help human life exist.
The gravitational attraction between Mars and its moons (which are much smaller than Earth’s moon) does produce tidal forces, however since there is very little liquid water on Mars and no known form of life on Mars, its moons do not affect Mars in a similar way.
How do the tides affect life in the bays and estuaries of Earth?
Does Mar’s Moon affect it in a similar way?
The gravitational attraction between the Earth and the Moon causes the tides on Earth. Tides are the rising of Earth’s water surfaces. The tides raise the water surfaces and then the water surfaces lower because of the changing position of the Moon relative to the Earth and also because the Earth rotates.
The tides affect life in the bays and estuaries on Earth as the life (organisms)present In the bays and estuaries that exist between the high water line and the low water line have to adapt to being out of the water part of the time and being covered by water at other times. Also some of these organisms provide food for humans and thus help human life exist.
The gravitational attraction between Mars and its moons (which are much smaller than Earth’s moon) does produce tidal forces, however since there is very little liquid water on Mars and no known form of life on Mars, its moons do not affect Mars in a similar way.
http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/2073/Two-Martian-Moons-Newsletter-Challenge-05-29-07
Two Martian Moons: Newsletter Challenge (05/29/07)
Posted May 27, 2007 5:01 PM
Pathfinder Tags: challenge questions
The question as it appears in the 05/29 edition of Specs & Techs from GlobalSpec:
Mars has two moons, Deimos and Phobos; both orbit in the same direction. Standing near the equator on the Martian surface one night, you watch them both. To your astonishment, Deimos appears to be slowly moving from east to west relative to you, while Phobos is slowly moving from west to east. How can this be? Supporting calculations will score extra points!
Thanks to Jorrie who submitted the original question (which we revised a bit).
(Update: June 5, 8:35 AM EST) And the Answer is...
The closer a satellite (natural or artificial) is to the planet it orbits, the faster it travels around that planet. Both Martian moons travel around Mars from west to east. Deimos, however, is sufficiently far from Mars (like the Earth's moon is from Earth) that it travels around the planet slower than Mars rotates on its axis. Thus, to an observer on the surface of Mars, Deimos appears to be "left behind in the sky" and appears to move from east to west. Phobos, on the other hand, is much closer and actually orbits around Mars faster than Mars rotates.
Two Martian Moons: Newsletter Challenge (05/29/07)
Posted May 27, 2007 5:01 PM
Pathfinder Tags: challenge questions
The question as it appears in the 05/29 edition of Specs & Techs from GlobalSpec:
Mars has two moons, Deimos and Phobos; both orbit in the same direction. Standing near the equator on the Martian surface one night, you watch them both. To your astonishment, Deimos appears to be slowly moving from east to west relative to you, while Phobos is slowly moving from west to east. How can this be? Supporting calculations will score extra points!
Thanks to Jorrie who submitted the original question (which we revised a bit).
(Update: June 5, 8:35 AM EST) And the Answer is...
The closer a satellite (natural or artificial) is to the planet it orbits, the faster it travels around that planet. Both Martian moons travel around Mars from west to east. Deimos, however, is sufficiently far from Mars (like the Earth's moon is from Earth) that it travels around the planet slower than Mars rotates on its axis. Thus, to an observer on the surface of Mars, Deimos appears to be "left behind in the sky" and appears to move from east to west. Phobos, on the other hand, is much closer and actually orbits around Mars faster than Mars rotates.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.हटमल
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Kate Raviliousfor National Geographic News
February 28, 2007
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.
Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts"।) रीड मोरे अत थे लिंक अबोवे
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Kate Raviliousfor National Geographic News
February 28, 2007
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.
Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts"।) रीड मोरे अत थे लिंक अबोवे
NOAA reading on Mars weather:
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/astro/mars.php
How Does Earth’s Rotation and Tilt Affect It’s Biosphere?
Compare To Mars Rotation And Tilt (If Any).
Does Mars Experience Seasonal Changes And Weather Conditions Like Earth?
Earth’s rotation causes periods of sunlight and darkness (which are day and night). Earth’s tilt makes the amount of sunlight reaching any certain spot on Earth to vary over the different times of the year. This causes the seasons and in the Northern Hemisphere when the North Pole is pointing toward the sun it is summer and the days last longer and the sun climbs higher in the sky. This makes the days longer and hotter. Winter is the opposite.
Mars has a pretty similar rotation and tilt to that of Earth. Because Mars is much further from the sun than Earth its orbit takes almost twice as long so a Mar’s year is almost twice as long as an Earth year. This makes the seasons on Mars about twice as long as those on Earth. It does not get nearly as hot on Mars during the summers but it gets much colder than on Earth during the winters.
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/astro/mars.php
How Does Earth’s Rotation and Tilt Affect It’s Biosphere?
Compare To Mars Rotation And Tilt (If Any).
Does Mars Experience Seasonal Changes And Weather Conditions Like Earth?
Earth’s rotation causes periods of sunlight and darkness (which are day and night). Earth’s tilt makes the amount of sunlight reaching any certain spot on Earth to vary over the different times of the year. This causes the seasons and in the Northern Hemisphere when the North Pole is pointing toward the sun it is summer and the days last longer and the sun climbs higher in the sky. This makes the days longer and hotter. Winter is the opposite.
Mars has a pretty similar rotation and tilt to that of Earth. Because Mars is much further from the sun than Earth its orbit takes almost twice as long so a Mar’s year is almost twice as long as an Earth year. This makes the seasons on Mars about twice as long as those on Earth. It does not get nearly as hot on Mars during the summers but it gets much colder than on Earth during the winters.
Student Reports on Mars Topics
Compare the Earth’s temperature, liquid water resources, mass and atmospheric gases to those on Mars. Do conditions for Earth-like life exist on Mars?
The highest and lowest temperatures recorded on Earth’s surface are 134F and -128F while the figures for Mars are 68F and -220F.
Earth has a great deal of liquid water resources from oceans, inland seas, lakes, rivers and underground water. Mars has no liquid water because of its low atmospheric pressure except for short periods of time at the lowest points on its surface.
Earth’s mass is 5.9736 x 10 (to the 24th power) Kilos. Mar’s mass is 6.4185 x 10 (to the 23rd power) Kilos . This means that Mars has only 11% of the mass of Earth.
Earth’s atmospheric gases consist of about 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, .93% Argon, .038% Carbon dioxide and 1% Water vapor. This compares to Mar’s atmospheric gases of about 3% Nitrogen, 1.6% Argon, 95% Carbon dioxide, and small traces of Oxygen, Water vapor, and other gases.
Conditions for Earth-like life don’t exist on Mars. There is practically no liquid water on its surface because of the thin atmosphere and other things like solar wind and a lot of ultraviolet light. But our scientists have still not completely ruled out the possibility of some form of life.
The highest and lowest temperatures recorded on Earth’s surface are 134F and -128F while the figures for Mars are 68F and -220F.
Earth has a great deal of liquid water resources from oceans, inland seas, lakes, rivers and underground water. Mars has no liquid water because of its low atmospheric pressure except for short periods of time at the lowest points on its surface.
Earth’s mass is 5.9736 x 10 (to the 24th power) Kilos. Mar’s mass is 6.4185 x 10 (to the 23rd power) Kilos . This means that Mars has only 11% of the mass of Earth.
Earth’s atmospheric gases consist of about 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, .93% Argon, .038% Carbon dioxide and 1% Water vapor. This compares to Mar’s atmospheric gases of about 3% Nitrogen, 1.6% Argon, 95% Carbon dioxide, and small traces of Oxygen, Water vapor, and other gases.
Conditions for Earth-like life don’t exist on Mars. There is practically no liquid water on its surface because of the thin atmosphere and other things like solar wind and a lot of ultraviolet light. But our scientists have still not completely ruled out the possibility of some form of life.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Maybe our testing is wrong, and there is still life on Mars.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227094.500-mars-robots-may-have-destroyed-evidence-of-life.html
HAVE Mars landers been destroying signs of life?
Instead of identifying chemicals that could point to life, NASA's robot explorers may have been toasting them by mistake.
In 1976, many people's hopes of finding life on Mars collapsed when the twin Viking landers failed to detect even minute quantities of organic compounds - the complex, carbon-containing molecules that are central to life as we know it. "It contributed, in my opinion, to the fact that there were no additional [US lander] missions to Mars for 20 years," says Jeff Moore of NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California.
The result also created a puzzle. Even if Mars has never had life, comets and asteroids that have struck the planet should have scattered at least some organic molecules - though not produced by life - over its surface.
Some have suggested that organics were cleansed from the surface by naturally occurring, highly reactive chemicals such as hydrogen peroxide. Then last year, NASA's Phoenix lander, which also failed to detect organics on Mars, stumbled on something in the Martian soil that may have, in effect, been hiding the organics: a class of chemicals called perchlorates.
At low temperatures, perchlorates are relatively harmless. But when heated to hundreds of degrees Celsius they release a lot of oxygen, which tends to cause any nearby combustible material to burn. For that very reason, perchlorates are used in rocket propulsion.
The Phoenix and Viking landers looked for organic molecules by heating soil samples to similarly high temperatures to evaporate them and analyse them in gas form. When Douglas Ming of NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, and colleagues tried heating organics and perchlorates like this on Earth, the resulting combustion left no trace of organics behind. Ming's team presented their results at the recent Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in Houston.
Iron oxides have also been suspected of interfering with the detection of organics, but perchlorates are probably far more effective, says Chris McKay of Ames. Even if organics make up a few parts per thousand of the soil, Viking or Phoenix could have missed them, he adds, so it is too soon to conclude that these materials are not there. "We haven't looked the right way," he says.
Jeffrey Bada of the University of California, San Diego, agrees that a new approach is needed. He is leading work on a new instrument called Urey for the European Space Agency's ExoMars rover, due to launch in 2016, which will be able to detect organic material at concentrations as low as a few parts per trillion. The good news is that, although Urey heats its samples, it does so in water, so the organics cannot burn up.
Mystery of the missing salt
Organic chemicals are not the only substance that we may have missed on the Red Planet (see above). We should have seen carbonate salts littering the surface.
Weathering breaks down basalt, the dominant rock in the planet's crust, into a clay plus positive ions. These ions should react with carbon dioxide in the Martian atmosphere to form carbonate salts, explains Ralph Milliken at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.
Orbiters have spotted clay on Mars but few carbonates or other salts. We shouldn't assume that they aren't there, however, Milliken says.
Milliken and his colleagues have calculated that weathered Mars basalt should produce equal amounts of clay and salt. Thus in the planet's southern highlands, where thousands of clay deposits have been identified, there should be at least as much salt (Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1029/2009gl038558). "Chemistry has shown that you can't draw conclusions from observations alone, because you are still missing pieces of the puzzle," says Milliken.
Some argue that the lack of known carbonate salt deposits points to a different atmospheric composition in the past, but Milliken says we should study the rocks directly before making any conclusions
HAVE Mars landers been destroying signs of life?
Instead of identifying chemicals that could point to life, NASA's robot explorers may have been toasting them by mistake.
In 1976, many people's hopes of finding life on Mars collapsed when the twin Viking landers failed to detect even minute quantities of organic compounds - the complex, carbon-containing molecules that are central to life as we know it. "It contributed, in my opinion, to the fact that there were no additional [US lander] missions to Mars for 20 years," says Jeff Moore of NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California.
The result also created a puzzle. Even if Mars has never had life, comets and asteroids that have struck the planet should have scattered at least some organic molecules - though not produced by life - over its surface.
Some have suggested that organics were cleansed from the surface by naturally occurring, highly reactive chemicals such as hydrogen peroxide. Then last year, NASA's Phoenix lander, which also failed to detect organics on Mars, stumbled on something in the Martian soil that may have, in effect, been hiding the organics: a class of chemicals called perchlorates.
At low temperatures, perchlorates are relatively harmless. But when heated to hundreds of degrees Celsius they release a lot of oxygen, which tends to cause any nearby combustible material to burn. For that very reason, perchlorates are used in rocket propulsion.
The Phoenix and Viking landers looked for organic molecules by heating soil samples to similarly high temperatures to evaporate them and analyse them in gas form. When Douglas Ming of NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, and colleagues tried heating organics and perchlorates like this on Earth, the resulting combustion left no trace of organics behind. Ming's team presented their results at the recent Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in Houston.
Iron oxides have also been suspected of interfering with the detection of organics, but perchlorates are probably far more effective, says Chris McKay of Ames. Even if organics make up a few parts per thousand of the soil, Viking or Phoenix could have missed them, he adds, so it is too soon to conclude that these materials are not there. "We haven't looked the right way," he says.
Jeffrey Bada of the University of California, San Diego, agrees that a new approach is needed. He is leading work on a new instrument called Urey for the European Space Agency's ExoMars rover, due to launch in 2016, which will be able to detect organic material at concentrations as low as a few parts per trillion. The good news is that, although Urey heats its samples, it does so in water, so the organics cannot burn up.
Mystery of the missing salt
Organic chemicals are not the only substance that we may have missed on the Red Planet (see above). We should have seen carbonate salts littering the surface.
Weathering breaks down basalt, the dominant rock in the planet's crust, into a clay plus positive ions. These ions should react with carbon dioxide in the Martian atmosphere to form carbonate salts, explains Ralph Milliken at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.
Orbiters have spotted clay on Mars but few carbonates or other salts. We shouldn't assume that they aren't there, however, Milliken says.
Milliken and his colleagues have calculated that weathered Mars basalt should produce equal amounts of clay and salt. Thus in the planet's southern highlands, where thousands of clay deposits have been identified, there should be at least as much salt (Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1029/2009gl038558). "Chemistry has shown that you can't draw conclusions from observations alone, because you are still missing pieces of the puzzle," says Milliken.
Some argue that the lack of known carbonate salt deposits points to a different atmospheric composition in the past, but Milliken says we should study the rocks directly before making any conclusions
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
A Quaker Friend emailed me a note that there are Quaker Blogs and Other Science Teachers that are Seekers....if you are not a Quaker, excuse my intro.
That Which Boggles (TWB)
http://sillypoorgospel.blogspot.com/2009/04/that-which-boggles.html
I received the email from my friend the science teacher on Darwin’s Birthday.
He was expressing admiration for Quakers. He had read a bit by some British Friend stating that Quakers had no quarrel with Mr. Darwin or the Theory of Evolution. He was impressed, and was telling me so.
I accepted his kudos and for the sake of integrity stated that there were some Friends who might not have much truck with Darwin, but that I was not one of them.
My friend is no kind of religionist. He is intelligent, gentle and kind. He is tolerant of those like me who live their lives in conversation with what I am sure he thinks of as an elaborate imaginary friend called God. But he feels no need of such supernatural supports.
Yet I am not sure that he and I have no common spiritual ground.I think this because I have heard him describe what I would call a mystical experience, what early Friends would call an opening.
He is a science teacher, secondary school. He came to it late after another career. He came to it because he had continuing and powerful experiences in the pursuit of science. I have heard him describe the experience of discovery of that which boggles the mind. He describes this experience with deep passion and obvious joy. He can describe being a good enough student, an attentive enough observer, that he reaches a plane where he bumps into truth so amazing that all the mind can do is boggle – gaze in rapt awe – try to accept what it can only incompletely comprehend. He describes the desire of all scientists to take that comprehension just one step farther than the boggle point. He calls this science. I, of course, have the same experience and call it religion.
But I recognize that his science is one very fine religion.The Worship of That Which Boggles has meeting houses – classrooms and laboratories. It has rituals and methodologies. If you advance far enough you get vestments – lab coats and regalia. It has acolytes. My friend is there for the acolytes. He is the master of novices. He teaches all his students, but he watches for the nascent believers, the ones who get excited when they near the boggle point.
And he is an evangelist. He actively attempts to introduce them to TWB. He knows that not all will be boggled – that only a few will pursue further bogglement - that fewer still will make it their life’s passion. But he scatters his seed widely and harvests where ever life sprouts.
His religion, like mine, believes in the doctrine of continuing revelation. That which we discern, and test, and live into will develop and change and grow as our understanding grows. We both believe in Truth, and we both believe it is blasphemy to claim that you have grasp of the entire truth.I have worshiped at this altar.
For me it was college and the double slit light experiment where light behaves like a brazen floozy, and shows you wave or particle depending on what you ask for. She cannot be both and yet she is. I have been bogged. I occasionally worship with the Bogglers still. Whenever someone will teach me at the Zen beginner’s level that I need. That is why I like to have my friend over for an ecumenical dinner, he is a fine preacher, and I happily sit under his preaching.I believe that his Boggler and mine are one. I do work in a different department.
The division of hearts and souls, tech support, specifically. I am but a lab assistant in the laboratory of sanctification. I help people when their work gets stuck. I know some best practices that produce reliable results. I help them check their numbers. I listen to their reports and give feedback. But once in a while I still get into that Holy of Holys of pure bogglement.
I have stood with souls who are despairing, screamingly suicidal, no hope, no comfort, no reason to live. They stand facing a precipice, contemplating an all or nothing experiment in permanent pain management. I stand shoulder to shoulder with them, but facing the other way - pointing towards life. What always amazes me is how these souls can be simultaneously and completely committed to opposing, contradictory aims. They want to die and they want to live. It cannot be both ways, but it is.
I see wave, they see particle. And then if I am very blessed. In that moment of paradox, they take my hand and take one step away from the edge. Where the strength comes from to do this I do not know. But I know that I am boggled every time. And I know that my simple attention, my observation of their pain, changes something.
That is pastor Schroedinger’s sermon, I believe..
// posted by Peggy Senger Parsons @ Monday, April 20, 2009
That Which Boggles (TWB)
http://sillypoorgospel.blogspot.com/2009/04/that-which-boggles.html
I received the email from my friend the science teacher on Darwin’s Birthday.
He was expressing admiration for Quakers. He had read a bit by some British Friend stating that Quakers had no quarrel with Mr. Darwin or the Theory of Evolution. He was impressed, and was telling me so.
I accepted his kudos and for the sake of integrity stated that there were some Friends who might not have much truck with Darwin, but that I was not one of them.
My friend is no kind of religionist. He is intelligent, gentle and kind. He is tolerant of those like me who live their lives in conversation with what I am sure he thinks of as an elaborate imaginary friend called God. But he feels no need of such supernatural supports.
Yet I am not sure that he and I have no common spiritual ground.I think this because I have heard him describe what I would call a mystical experience, what early Friends would call an opening.
He is a science teacher, secondary school. He came to it late after another career. He came to it because he had continuing and powerful experiences in the pursuit of science. I have heard him describe the experience of discovery of that which boggles the mind. He describes this experience with deep passion and obvious joy. He can describe being a good enough student, an attentive enough observer, that he reaches a plane where he bumps into truth so amazing that all the mind can do is boggle – gaze in rapt awe – try to accept what it can only incompletely comprehend. He describes the desire of all scientists to take that comprehension just one step farther than the boggle point. He calls this science. I, of course, have the same experience and call it religion.
But I recognize that his science is one very fine religion.The Worship of That Which Boggles has meeting houses – classrooms and laboratories. It has rituals and methodologies. If you advance far enough you get vestments – lab coats and regalia. It has acolytes. My friend is there for the acolytes. He is the master of novices. He teaches all his students, but he watches for the nascent believers, the ones who get excited when they near the boggle point.
And he is an evangelist. He actively attempts to introduce them to TWB. He knows that not all will be boggled – that only a few will pursue further bogglement - that fewer still will make it their life’s passion. But he scatters his seed widely and harvests where ever life sprouts.
His religion, like mine, believes in the doctrine of continuing revelation. That which we discern, and test, and live into will develop and change and grow as our understanding grows. We both believe in Truth, and we both believe it is blasphemy to claim that you have grasp of the entire truth.I have worshiped at this altar.
For me it was college and the double slit light experiment where light behaves like a brazen floozy, and shows you wave or particle depending on what you ask for. She cannot be both and yet she is. I have been bogged. I occasionally worship with the Bogglers still. Whenever someone will teach me at the Zen beginner’s level that I need. That is why I like to have my friend over for an ecumenical dinner, he is a fine preacher, and I happily sit under his preaching.I believe that his Boggler and mine are one. I do work in a different department.
The division of hearts and souls, tech support, specifically. I am but a lab assistant in the laboratory of sanctification. I help people when their work gets stuck. I know some best practices that produce reliable results. I help them check their numbers. I listen to their reports and give feedback. But once in a while I still get into that Holy of Holys of pure bogglement.
I have stood with souls who are despairing, screamingly suicidal, no hope, no comfort, no reason to live. They stand facing a precipice, contemplating an all or nothing experiment in permanent pain management. I stand shoulder to shoulder with them, but facing the other way - pointing towards life. What always amazes me is how these souls can be simultaneously and completely committed to opposing, contradictory aims. They want to die and they want to live. It cannot be both ways, but it is.
I see wave, they see particle. And then if I am very blessed. In that moment of paradox, they take my hand and take one step away from the edge. Where the strength comes from to do this I do not know. But I know that I am boggled every time. And I know that my simple attention, my observation of their pain, changes something.
That is pastor Schroedinger’s sermon, I believe..
// posted by Peggy Senger Parsons @ Monday, April 20, 2009
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Surviving Space: Risks to Humans on the Moon and Mars
By Robert Roy Britt
Senior Science Writer
posted: 06:00 am ET20 January 2004
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_dangers_040120.html
There is no "biggest danger" in setting up a permanent lunar presence or sending people to Mars, says John Charles, an enthusiastic proponent of both ideas and a NASA analyst of the costs and risks of human space flight: "There are several."
Launch, landing and re-entry are perhaps the riskiest moments of any space venture, history shows. But on long missions, what would otherwise be minor threats could become at best serious limitations or at worst deadly disasters.
Basking in the glow of President Bush's call for sending humans back to the Moon as early as 2015 and then eventually to the red planet, Charles, who works at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, offered up his danger list yesterday:
Lack of a medical facility could turn a mundane injury into a life-threatening situation;
"Psychosocial" pressure will be high in a small group isolated for months or years;
Zero or reduced gravity causes bone and muscle loss;
Dangerous radiation particles are abundant beyond Earth orbit.
"Radiation is a potential show stopper," Charles told SPACE.com, quickly adding that researchers are "getting on top of that" while also learning how to clear the other hurdles.
Total exposure
Any grand leap into the cosmos, as outlined by Bush last week, will start with dangerous baby steps as explorers cautiously venture into the hazardous, radiation-laden space beyond Earth's protective magnetic field. Scientists are still working to characterize the dangers and develop the technologies necessary for safe suits and ships.
This much they know:
Any trip beyond Earth orbit will involve radiation threats not faced by residents of the International Space Station, which sits inside the planet's magnetic field.
A 2-1/2-year trip to Mars, including six months of travel time each way, would expose an astronaut to nearly the lifetime limit of radiation allowed under NASA guidelines.
The Moon, with no atmosphere, is more dangerous than the surface of Mars. Lunar forays will have to be brief unless expensive shielded habitats are built.
Mission planners knew the Apollo astronauts would be at grave risk if a strong solar flare occurred during a mission. The short duration of each trip was a key to creating favorable odds.
"A big solar event during one of those missions could have been catastrophic," said Cary Zeitlin, a radiation expert at the National Space Biomedical Research Institute at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. "The risk was known. They gambled a bit."
The White House plan calls for a permanent lunar base.
NASA already spends millions of dollars every year on research into space radiation and its biological effects, and more money goes into research on other health risks of long-term spaceflight. The new plan would refocus space station activities on supporting these investigations.
Double dose
Particle radiation in space goes right through the human body and can tear apart strands of DNA, the software of life that resides inside a cell nucleus. Damaged cells can lose the ability perform normally and to repair themselves.
There are two primary forms of hazardous space radiation particles. (These particles are different from electromagnetic radiation, such as X-rays, visible light or the ultraviolet (UV) rays that cause skin cancer.)
High-energy particles emitted by the Sun during intense flares are one type. They move outward at millions of miles an hour and can strike the Earth-Moon system in a day or two. Earth's magnetic field shields the planet from most of these. Some get through, though, especially in intense streams lasting several hours when a storm's magnetic field is aligned in a certain way with that of the planet's.
Earth's atmosphere blocks out most of the rest of these particles.
An astronaut would not want to be caught outside during a solar storm. Even airlines reroute flights when the Sun gets nasty to avoid polar regions, where more of the radiation leaks in.
Someone walking on the Moon, even in a fancy space suit, would be good as naked in the face of the Sun's worst fury.
"If one were exposed to the full brunt of a solar event, that could cause acute effects in the very short term," Zeitlin explained in a telephone interview. "Quite severe illness" could result. NASA says the radiation sickness from a solar flare could kill an unprotected astronaut.
Cosmic rays, the other big space-particle worry, come from undetermined galactic sources and pose a greater long-term risk for cancer, cataracts and other illness, Zeitlin said. Cosmic ray particles are more energetic than their solar cousins.
"These are atomic nuclei stripped of electrons," he explained. "They're able to penetrate many centimeters of solid matter."
Planets and moons offer natural protection against cosmic rays by blocking half the sky.
"When you're in free space the radiation comes at you from all directions," Zeitlin said. "When you're on a planetary surface it's only coming at you from above."
Exposure is therefore about twice as bad while travelling through space compared to being on the lunar or Martian surfaces.
Earth's atmosphere protects us against the cosmic particles as well as the solar. The Martian atmosphere, about 1 percent as dense as Earth's, manages to stop just about all of the solar particles, scientists figure, but it lets most of the cosmic rays through.
Martian irony
Only last year did scientists get the first solid measurements of radiation at Mars. Zeitlin is the principal investigator for MARIE, a radiation detection instrument aboard NASA's Mars Odyssey orbiter.
Zeitlin's team combined Odyssey data with Earth-orbiting satellite measurements of cosmic rays to project the radiation risk to an astronaut in free space and on the surface of Mars. The combined solar and cosmic ray particle exposure is measured in sieverts.
An astronaut in a six-month journey to Mars -- the time required with conventional propulsion -- would be exposed to about 0.3 sieverts, or 0.6 on a round-trip. Eighteen months on the surface (if it takes so long to get there, you might as well stay awhile!) would bring another 0.4 sieverts, for a total exposure of 1 sievert.
Limits set by NASA vary with age and gender but range from 1 to 3 sieverts.
When the Odyssey result was announced, several news reports misrepresented the risk, stating that it might prevent human missions to Mars. Zeitlin allows that it is close to the limits, but he says now, as he did then, that it is a "manageable dose." Further, the limits tend to drop as more is learned about the effects on humans. And, of course, the dose could be lowered with creative shielding technology.
(Interestingly, the best way to protect spacefarers aboard a Mars transport ship might be to surround them with the water they'd need for their journey. The hydrogen in water, scientists have learned, is one of the best absorbers of particle radiation.)
There is more to learn about the risk, however.
For one thing, Zeitlin's estimate, based on the Odyssey data, comes with 20 to 30 percent uncertainty. (In a form of cosmic irony, a solar storm last October disabled the MARIE instrument while leaving Odyssey otherwise in good order. The orbiter is currently serving as a relay for pictures and data coming from the Mars Spirit rover. Only after the rover mission is complete will engineers try to revive the radiation experiment.)
Perhaps more important, long-term space travel might make people more susceptible to radiation harm. It also appears some people are more susceptible than others. More research is needed to understand both these issues, however.
Also, the Odyssey data was collected just after the peak in a known 11-year cycle of solar activity. The levels would be greater during the peak and less at the trough. It might seem, then, that the first human trip to Mars should take place at solar minimum, a 2-3 year stretch every 11 years when sunspots and flares are almost nonexistent.
But there's a catch: "Galactic particle intensity picks up during solar minimum," Zeitlin said. They are higher-energy and more difficult to shield in a space habitat and "impossible to shield completely" on a spaceship.
Nuclear reactors use concrete to contain similar particles.
"You can't lift concrete blocks into space," Zeitlin points out, at least not at the going rate of about $10,000 per pound for launch costs.
Unfriendly Moon
Bush's first planned stop in the cosmos is the Moon. Its danger is, interestingly, not as well charted as that of Mars.
The Apollo astronauts made some measurements of radiation on the Moon, but the results don't provide as complete a picture as what scientists now have of the red planet. But Zeitlin said the Moon would be more dangerous since it has no atmosphere -- probably about half as dangerous as free space (again, someone on the Moon would be protected by the Moon itself on one side).
"The Moon would be worse than Mars and worse than the space station," he said. Short stays, perhaps one to two months, will be the norm early on. "That's a small enough dose of the galactic stuff that you're actually going to be more concerned about the solar particles, especially if you're near solar max," the intensely active part of the 11-year solar cycle.
Lunar visitors won't have the option of just sitting inside some protective shell. The president's vision makes exploration NASA's primary goal. So astronauts will presumably be called on to inspect the lunar countryside. That would present the risk of someone getting caught on a long rover excursion as a solar storm hits.
Warning times for Sun storms can be as little as 18 hours. Far less time is available to make firm predictions of the expected effect of a flare-up.
Zeitlin says a more extensive warning system will need to be established. This is especially true for Mars, which when it's on the far side of the Sun can be hit by solar tempests that don't even register with terrestrial scientists.
And there's more to do.
"We have to get smart about how we design the space suits and do everything we can to limit exposure to solar particles," Zeitlin said. "You can't stop everything with a space suit, but there are better and worse ways to design it."
The Apollo-era suits were not will equipped.
"They would not have done much," Zeitlin said. "We will try to improve on that."
'Ready to go'
NASA employees are ready for the challenge.
"We're ready to go," said John Charles the human spaceflight analyst. "I've been waiting for this for 20 years."
Charles is not among those space buffs dismayed that their ultimate desire to put humans on Mars will first involve a lengthy lunar effort. In the president's vision, the Moon will serve as a testing ground for landing and surviving on Mars.
Charles said the proximity of the Moon and familiarity with it offer a level of comfort.
"We're foolish not to go to the Moon first," he said, "because that's a place where we can practice with some degree of safety." After all, while a Mars trip would logically last two or three years, the Moon is a mere three days away. Either destination, he knows, remains dangerous.
"Anybody who gets hurt is totally dependent on the rest of the crew to take care of him or her," Charles points out. "If you're having a life-threatening trauma, three days can seem like three years."
Under the president's plan, NASA has at least 11 years to ponder the all this.
FAQ: Bush's Space Vision
Measurement of Mars Radiation
Medicine and Space Travel
Space Mailbag
By Robert Roy Britt
Senior Science Writer
posted: 06:00 am ET20 January 2004
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_dangers_040120.html
There is no "biggest danger" in setting up a permanent lunar presence or sending people to Mars, says John Charles, an enthusiastic proponent of both ideas and a NASA analyst of the costs and risks of human space flight: "There are several."
Launch, landing and re-entry are perhaps the riskiest moments of any space venture, history shows. But on long missions, what would otherwise be minor threats could become at best serious limitations or at worst deadly disasters.
Basking in the glow of President Bush's call for sending humans back to the Moon as early as 2015 and then eventually to the red planet, Charles, who works at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, offered up his danger list yesterday:
Lack of a medical facility could turn a mundane injury into a life-threatening situation;
"Psychosocial" pressure will be high in a small group isolated for months or years;
Zero or reduced gravity causes bone and muscle loss;
Dangerous radiation particles are abundant beyond Earth orbit.
"Radiation is a potential show stopper," Charles told SPACE.com, quickly adding that researchers are "getting on top of that" while also learning how to clear the other hurdles.
Total exposure
Any grand leap into the cosmos, as outlined by Bush last week, will start with dangerous baby steps as explorers cautiously venture into the hazardous, radiation-laden space beyond Earth's protective magnetic field. Scientists are still working to characterize the dangers and develop the technologies necessary for safe suits and ships.
This much they know:
Any trip beyond Earth orbit will involve radiation threats not faced by residents of the International Space Station, which sits inside the planet's magnetic field.
A 2-1/2-year trip to Mars, including six months of travel time each way, would expose an astronaut to nearly the lifetime limit of radiation allowed under NASA guidelines.
The Moon, with no atmosphere, is more dangerous than the surface of Mars. Lunar forays will have to be brief unless expensive shielded habitats are built.
Mission planners knew the Apollo astronauts would be at grave risk if a strong solar flare occurred during a mission. The short duration of each trip was a key to creating favorable odds.
"A big solar event during one of those missions could have been catastrophic," said Cary Zeitlin, a radiation expert at the National Space Biomedical Research Institute at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. "The risk was known. They gambled a bit."
The White House plan calls for a permanent lunar base.
NASA already spends millions of dollars every year on research into space radiation and its biological effects, and more money goes into research on other health risks of long-term spaceflight. The new plan would refocus space station activities on supporting these investigations.
Double dose
Particle radiation in space goes right through the human body and can tear apart strands of DNA, the software of life that resides inside a cell nucleus. Damaged cells can lose the ability perform normally and to repair themselves.
There are two primary forms of hazardous space radiation particles. (These particles are different from electromagnetic radiation, such as X-rays, visible light or the ultraviolet (UV) rays that cause skin cancer.)
High-energy particles emitted by the Sun during intense flares are one type. They move outward at millions of miles an hour and can strike the Earth-Moon system in a day or two. Earth's magnetic field shields the planet from most of these. Some get through, though, especially in intense streams lasting several hours when a storm's magnetic field is aligned in a certain way with that of the planet's.
Earth's atmosphere blocks out most of the rest of these particles.
An astronaut would not want to be caught outside during a solar storm. Even airlines reroute flights when the Sun gets nasty to avoid polar regions, where more of the radiation leaks in.
Someone walking on the Moon, even in a fancy space suit, would be good as naked in the face of the Sun's worst fury.
"If one were exposed to the full brunt of a solar event, that could cause acute effects in the very short term," Zeitlin explained in a telephone interview. "Quite severe illness" could result. NASA says the radiation sickness from a solar flare could kill an unprotected astronaut.
Cosmic rays, the other big space-particle worry, come from undetermined galactic sources and pose a greater long-term risk for cancer, cataracts and other illness, Zeitlin said. Cosmic ray particles are more energetic than their solar cousins.
"These are atomic nuclei stripped of electrons," he explained. "They're able to penetrate many centimeters of solid matter."
Planets and moons offer natural protection against cosmic rays by blocking half the sky.
"When you're in free space the radiation comes at you from all directions," Zeitlin said. "When you're on a planetary surface it's only coming at you from above."
Exposure is therefore about twice as bad while travelling through space compared to being on the lunar or Martian surfaces.
Earth's atmosphere protects us against the cosmic particles as well as the solar. The Martian atmosphere, about 1 percent as dense as Earth's, manages to stop just about all of the solar particles, scientists figure, but it lets most of the cosmic rays through.
Martian irony
Only last year did scientists get the first solid measurements of radiation at Mars. Zeitlin is the principal investigator for MARIE, a radiation detection instrument aboard NASA's Mars Odyssey orbiter.
Zeitlin's team combined Odyssey data with Earth-orbiting satellite measurements of cosmic rays to project the radiation risk to an astronaut in free space and on the surface of Mars. The combined solar and cosmic ray particle exposure is measured in sieverts.
An astronaut in a six-month journey to Mars -- the time required with conventional propulsion -- would be exposed to about 0.3 sieverts, or 0.6 on a round-trip. Eighteen months on the surface (if it takes so long to get there, you might as well stay awhile!) would bring another 0.4 sieverts, for a total exposure of 1 sievert.
Limits set by NASA vary with age and gender but range from 1 to 3 sieverts.
When the Odyssey result was announced, several news reports misrepresented the risk, stating that it might prevent human missions to Mars. Zeitlin allows that it is close to the limits, but he says now, as he did then, that it is a "manageable dose." Further, the limits tend to drop as more is learned about the effects on humans. And, of course, the dose could be lowered with creative shielding technology.
(Interestingly, the best way to protect spacefarers aboard a Mars transport ship might be to surround them with the water they'd need for their journey. The hydrogen in water, scientists have learned, is one of the best absorbers of particle radiation.)
There is more to learn about the risk, however.
For one thing, Zeitlin's estimate, based on the Odyssey data, comes with 20 to 30 percent uncertainty. (In a form of cosmic irony, a solar storm last October disabled the MARIE instrument while leaving Odyssey otherwise in good order. The orbiter is currently serving as a relay for pictures and data coming from the Mars Spirit rover. Only after the rover mission is complete will engineers try to revive the radiation experiment.)
Perhaps more important, long-term space travel might make people more susceptible to radiation harm. It also appears some people are more susceptible than others. More research is needed to understand both these issues, however.
Also, the Odyssey data was collected just after the peak in a known 11-year cycle of solar activity. The levels would be greater during the peak and less at the trough. It might seem, then, that the first human trip to Mars should take place at solar minimum, a 2-3 year stretch every 11 years when sunspots and flares are almost nonexistent.
But there's a catch: "Galactic particle intensity picks up during solar minimum," Zeitlin said. They are higher-energy and more difficult to shield in a space habitat and "impossible to shield completely" on a spaceship.
Nuclear reactors use concrete to contain similar particles.
"You can't lift concrete blocks into space," Zeitlin points out, at least not at the going rate of about $10,000 per pound for launch costs.
Unfriendly Moon
Bush's first planned stop in the cosmos is the Moon. Its danger is, interestingly, not as well charted as that of Mars.
The Apollo astronauts made some measurements of radiation on the Moon, but the results don't provide as complete a picture as what scientists now have of the red planet. But Zeitlin said the Moon would be more dangerous since it has no atmosphere -- probably about half as dangerous as free space (again, someone on the Moon would be protected by the Moon itself on one side).
"The Moon would be worse than Mars and worse than the space station," he said. Short stays, perhaps one to two months, will be the norm early on. "That's a small enough dose of the galactic stuff that you're actually going to be more concerned about the solar particles, especially if you're near solar max," the intensely active part of the 11-year solar cycle.
Lunar visitors won't have the option of just sitting inside some protective shell. The president's vision makes exploration NASA's primary goal. So astronauts will presumably be called on to inspect the lunar countryside. That would present the risk of someone getting caught on a long rover excursion as a solar storm hits.
Warning times for Sun storms can be as little as 18 hours. Far less time is available to make firm predictions of the expected effect of a flare-up.
Zeitlin says a more extensive warning system will need to be established. This is especially true for Mars, which when it's on the far side of the Sun can be hit by solar tempests that don't even register with terrestrial scientists.
And there's more to do.
"We have to get smart about how we design the space suits and do everything we can to limit exposure to solar particles," Zeitlin said. "You can't stop everything with a space suit, but there are better and worse ways to design it."
The Apollo-era suits were not will equipped.
"They would not have done much," Zeitlin said. "We will try to improve on that."
'Ready to go'
NASA employees are ready for the challenge.
"We're ready to go," said John Charles the human spaceflight analyst. "I've been waiting for this for 20 years."
Charles is not among those space buffs dismayed that their ultimate desire to put humans on Mars will first involve a lengthy lunar effort. In the president's vision, the Moon will serve as a testing ground for landing and surviving on Mars.
Charles said the proximity of the Moon and familiarity with it offer a level of comfort.
"We're foolish not to go to the Moon first," he said, "because that's a place where we can practice with some degree of safety." After all, while a Mars trip would logically last two or three years, the Moon is a mere three days away. Either destination, he knows, remains dangerous.
"Anybody who gets hurt is totally dependent on the rest of the crew to take care of him or her," Charles points out. "If you're having a life-threatening trauma, three days can seem like three years."
Under the president's plan, NASA has at least 11 years to ponder the all this.
FAQ: Bush's Space Vision
Measurement of Mars Radiation
Medicine and Space Travel
Space Mailbag
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
