Monday night offers a rare viewing opportunity for the planet Jupiter.
On Monday night, Jupiter will be at opposition, meaning that the planet will be directly opposite the sun and fully illuminated, allowing for the best viewing of that object.
This year, however, Jupiter is passing particularly close to the earth. At 368 million miles away, this is the closest Jupiter has been since 1963. Jupiter will not pass close to the earth again until 2022 since the planet has an orbital period of 12 years.
This astronomical event is made even more special by the fact that Uranus will also be at opposition on Monday night.
Jupiter has been through a lot in the past year. Last July, the gas giant was struck by a comet, creating a large black spot in addition to the Great Red Spot. Also, the South Equatorial Belt has recently disappeared. The brown band may simply be hidden under the clouds.
September 20, 2010
June 20, 2010
More Moon Water
New information suggests to researchers that the moon's interior may contain even more water than that of all the Great Lakes—after believing for forty years that the moon was completely dry. However, when they say water, the scientists mean hydroxyl, a compound which consists of one oxygen atom and one hydrogen atom, bound to a mineral called apatite. We were unable to find the water until now because it is in such low concentrations, locked away within minerals like apatite.
By analyzing rock samples collected from the Apollo missions, it has now been figured that the moon's water content is between 64 parts per billion and 5 parts per million—or a hundred times more water than previously thought. Supposedly, if the water were in liquid form, and not locked away within moon minerals, the water would cover the surface of the moon in a sea about one meter thick.
Perhaps these new findings could help support the theory of the moon's origins: some large object impacted the earth shortly after the formation of our solar system. The debris from the impact coalesced and to form the moon.
By analyzing rock samples collected from the Apollo missions, it has now been figured that the moon's water content is between 64 parts per billion and 5 parts per million—or a hundred times more water than previously thought. Supposedly, if the water were in liquid form, and not locked away within moon minerals, the water would cover the surface of the moon in a sea about one meter thick.
Perhaps these new findings could help support the theory of the moon's origins: some large object impacted the earth shortly after the formation of our solar system. The debris from the impact coalesced and to form the moon.
June 12, 2010
Epsilon Eridani
There exists another solar system similar to ours: Epsilon Eridani. It is located about ten light-years away in the constellation of Eridanus, or the River. Observations from the Spitzer Space Telescope, which measures infrared radiation, have shown that this system contains two asteroid belts, a ring of comets, and possible planets. One of the planets in this system was officially identified in 2000, via the radial velocity method of detection, meaning that scientists observed the way in which the planet pulls on the host star, causing it to wobble slightly.
The inner asteroid belt is located about three astronomical units from the host star, comparable to the location our own solar system's asteroid belt. The second belt is about twenty astronomical units from the star, which is about where Uranus orbits in our solar system. The ring of comets is thirty-five to ninety astronomical units away from the star, similar to our Kuiper Belt.
The inner asteroid belt is located about three astronomical units from the host star, comparable to the location our own solar system's asteroid belt. The second belt is about twenty astronomical units from the star, which is about where Uranus orbits in our solar system. The ring of comets is thirty-five to ninety astronomical units away from the star, similar to our Kuiper Belt.
June 10, 2010
New Record in Space
There is a new record for the biggest change in velocity by a spacecraft: on June 5, 2010, the Dawn spacecraft achieved an accumulated acceleration of 2.7 miles per second, or 9,600 miles per hour. The previous standard was set by Deep Space 1, launched in October of 1998, which flew past asteroid 9969 Braille and comet Borrelly. Dawn is on a long journey towards two asteroids, Vesta and Ceres, in hopes of finding out more about the early universe. It will arrive at Vesta in 2011 and 2012, and Ceres in 2015.
Dawn travels through space in the same way as Deep Space 1: through ion propulsion. In four days, Dawn utilizes only 37 ounces of xenon propellant, allowing the spacecraft to go from zero to sixty miles per hour over that time. The reason why Dawn has surpassed Deep Space 1's record is because it has been firing its engines, one at a time, accumulating acceleration. Over the course of Dawn's trip, its engines will have been operating for 2,000 days, allowing the spacecraft to achieve 24,000 miles per hour, but it will not be using up very much propellant. With only 16 gallons of fuel, Dawn can reach 5,500 miles per hour.
Dawn is expected to surpass another one of Deep Space 1's records for the longest duration of powered flight. Come this August, that record should belong to Dawn.
Update on the Jupiter Impact
Last July 19, 2009, something big crashed into the side of Jupiter. By studying pictures taken by the Hubble Space Telescope of the impact site and comparing them to pictures taken during the July 1994 Jupiter impact from Comet P/Shoemaker-Levy 9, scientists are now calling the culprit a rogue asteroid, of about 1600 feet wide. This asteroid's impact was comparable to the force of a few thousand nuclear exploding, according to NASA.
Hayabusa Returns
After making physical contact with an asteroid five years ago, the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency's project Hayabusa is making its return to Earth on June 13. The craft was originally launched on May 9, 2003, destined for the asteroid Itokawa. On November 25, 2005, the spacecraft touched down for a time on the asteroid—only the second spacecraft to do so, next to NASA's NEAR-Shoemaker which traveled to Eros in 2001, but Hayabusa was the first to sample the asteroid surface material.
Hayabusa has traveled 1.25 billion miles over the last seven years, but the journey has finally come to an end. Hayabusa will be entering Earth's atmoshpere at the second-highest re-entry velocity in history, according to one NASA scientist. NASA is helping JAXA to guide the spacecraft's return.
Hayabusa has traveled 1.25 billion miles over the last seven years, but the journey has finally come to an end. Hayabusa will be entering Earth's atmoshpere at the second-highest re-entry velocity in history, according to one NASA scientist. NASA is helping JAXA to guide the spacecraft's return.
April 29, 2010
Quotes from Maria Mitchell
“There are the brightening and flickering variable stars whose cause is all unknown and the meteor showers for all of these the reasons are as clear as for the successions of day and night. They lie just beyond the daily mist of our minds, but our eyes have not yet pierced through it.”
“We must face the light and not bury our heads in the Earth. I am hopeful that scientific investigation pushed on and on, will reveal new ways in which God works and bring to us deeper revelations of the wholly unknown. The physical and the spiritual seem to be at present separated by an impossible gulf, but at any second, that gulf may be overleapt, possibly a new revelation may come.”
Maria Mitchell (1818-1889) was a Quaker and America’s first woman astronomer. During her time, whaling was an important industry for the island: Nantucket was the world whaling capital from 1800 to 1840. Mitchell was a smart, accomplished woman who began studying astronomy at the age of twelve. She was observing one night in 1847, when she discovered a comet—for which the King of Denmark awarded her with a Gold Medal. Later, she became the first professor of astronomy at Vassar College in 1865 and the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Women in 1875. Through her work, Mitchell hoped to encourage young women to engage in astronomy.
April 24, 2010
Jay Buckey
I was very appreciative of the opportunity for astronaut Jay Buckey to come speak to our class. I thought it was beneficial in a few different ways—plus it was fun and I thought it was great to have a guest speaker.
One thing I really enjoyed learning about were all the different animals that were brought along with Spacelab. I thought it was impressive that they managed to keep oyster toadfish, which of course need water—an aquarium in microgravity! I was also intrigued by the experiment with the space rats versus the ground rats. The space rats, after returning to the earth, were able to adapt and walk normally, even though they had developed in space. So microgravity did not really affect their development, except that they had more difficulty than the ground rats in flipping themselves over when turned on their backs.
Furthermore, it was interesting that Dr. Buckey talked about Neurolab as being the most scientifically intense shuttle mission. He seemed rather disappointed that NASA has not sent up any more missions like Neurolab—and now the shuttle program is ending. But Dr. Buckey talked about his interest in long-duration spaceflight, particularly to Mars. He said that the three major issues would be bone loss, radiation, and the psychosocial effects of such a long flight. However, he would like to see NASA become more goal directed in regards to the International Space Station, and I can agree with that. We need firm dates plotted along a timeline to ensure more productivity.
Additionally, I really like what he said about investing in the spaceflight program: if every investment is a winner, then maybe we are not investing enough. We cannot be scared to send humans into space just because there might be some risk involved; we cannot know all the direct benefits of human spaceflight. And I agree with what Dr. Buckey said about demonstrating our reliability by continuing to send humans into space. Then, we can maintain our capability to travel into space, and I certainly think that is beneficial to us.
Plus, the United States needs to be the forerunner of the "next new industry." Maybe that means commercial spaceflight—Obama seems open to that, based on his new vision for spaceflight. Obama would rather push forward towards Mars or an asteroid instead of continuing with missions to low-earth orbit, leaving room for commercial endeavors.
Thus, Dr. Buckey basically solidified my argument for human spaceflight—and I thought he was very eloquent about it. It was clearly very interesting to hear about an astronaut's perspective on the United States space program since he is the one actually involved in it.
One thing I really enjoyed learning about were all the different animals that were brought along with Spacelab. I thought it was impressive that they managed to keep oyster toadfish, which of course need water—an aquarium in microgravity! I was also intrigued by the experiment with the space rats versus the ground rats. The space rats, after returning to the earth, were able to adapt and walk normally, even though they had developed in space. So microgravity did not really affect their development, except that they had more difficulty than the ground rats in flipping themselves over when turned on their backs.
Furthermore, it was interesting that Dr. Buckey talked about Neurolab as being the most scientifically intense shuttle mission. He seemed rather disappointed that NASA has not sent up any more missions like Neurolab—and now the shuttle program is ending. But Dr. Buckey talked about his interest in long-duration spaceflight, particularly to Mars. He said that the three major issues would be bone loss, radiation, and the psychosocial effects of such a long flight. However, he would like to see NASA become more goal directed in regards to the International Space Station, and I can agree with that. We need firm dates plotted along a timeline to ensure more productivity.
Additionally, I really like what he said about investing in the spaceflight program: if every investment is a winner, then maybe we are not investing enough. We cannot be scared to send humans into space just because there might be some risk involved; we cannot know all the direct benefits of human spaceflight. And I agree with what Dr. Buckey said about demonstrating our reliability by continuing to send humans into space. Then, we can maintain our capability to travel into space, and I certainly think that is beneficial to us.
Plus, the United States needs to be the forerunner of the "next new industry." Maybe that means commercial spaceflight—Obama seems open to that, based on his new vision for spaceflight. Obama would rather push forward towards Mars or an asteroid instead of continuing with missions to low-earth orbit, leaving room for commercial endeavors.
Thus, Dr. Buckey basically solidified my argument for human spaceflight—and I thought he was very eloquent about it. It was clearly very interesting to hear about an astronaut's perspective on the United States space program since he is the one actually involved in it.
April 17, 2010
Obama and the Human Spaceflight Program
Recently, there has been a lot of talk about President Barack Obama's plans for the United States human spaceflight program.
This week, the New York Times posted an article, claiming that "Obama vows [for a] renewed space program," and quoting that “the bottom line is, nobody is more committed to manned spaceflight, to human exploration of space, than I am.” I have to wonder about that, considering that the future of the Constellation program, which would send humans back to the moon, remains quite dim. Admittedly, though Obama intended to cancel the program entirely in February 2010, this week he has now suggested using the Orion spacecraft, part of the Constellation program, as "the technological foundation for advanced spacecraft to be used in future deep space missions." The proposed launch date for Orion is in 2015 and could send humans to the moon in 2020, but Obama has suggested using Orion as a rescue vehicle for the Space Station.
Neil Armstrong and Eugene Cernan wrote a letter concerning Obama's plan to cancel the Constellation program, which MSNBC quotes him as saying, "For the United States, the leading spacefaring nation for nearly half a century, to be without carriage to low Earth orbit and with no human exploration capability to go beyond Earth orbit for an indeterminate time into the future, destines our nation to become one of second- or even third-rate stature." I think that the Orion spacecraft could be our next big step in the human exploration of the moon and beyond, and I can agree with the astronauts that we cannot give up this endeavor. I think it would be unreasonable to rely on the Russians to bring our American astronauts into space for too long.
According to the New York Times, Obama also said, "we can’t just keep on doing the same old things we’ve been doing and thinking that’s going to get us where we want to go." I would like to know what exactly Obama thinks is old because I believe that NASA has created certain goals for itself, such as eventually sending humans to Mars, and NASA intends to pursue those goals.
However, perhaps Obama's vision for the future of NASA is commendable in a certain regard: over the next five years, he will increase NASA's budget by $6 billion. Also, he seems to be redirecting NASA's mission towards exploration of Mars (by 2030), asteroids (by 2025), and beyond, instead of concentrating on low-earth orbit. The Times claims that Obama's visions is "a call for private industry to innovate its way to Mars, rather than a call for a national effort to demonstrate American predominance." Furthermore, Obama will devote $40 million in order to retain jobs involved with the space industry and he will create over 10,000 new jobs nationwide, which I think is a good idea since we would certainly lose a lot of jobs without the space program. Perhaps the only problem with all this is that Obama's timeline extends beyond his presidency and future presidents may have a different agenda.
I also thought it was interesting that Obama said:
I suppose it is nice to hear that our President has faith in the space program, but I wonder if this speech was enough to rouse public support for the program. Obviously NASA has benefited us and can continue to benefit us, and NASA is really only a small portion of the United States budget. But maybe that does not necessarily mean that Americans have to support the space program because we have no real initiative like we did during the Cold War. We are only pursuing this because we feel like it—and I am all for that. I am just not so sure that the American public is completely for that. We need more faith in the space program.
Articles Read:
This week, the New York Times posted an article, claiming that "Obama vows [for a] renewed space program," and quoting that “the bottom line is, nobody is more committed to manned spaceflight, to human exploration of space, than I am.” I have to wonder about that, considering that the future of the Constellation program, which would send humans back to the moon, remains quite dim. Admittedly, though Obama intended to cancel the program entirely in February 2010, this week he has now suggested using the Orion spacecraft, part of the Constellation program, as "the technological foundation for advanced spacecraft to be used in future deep space missions." The proposed launch date for Orion is in 2015 and could send humans to the moon in 2020, but Obama has suggested using Orion as a rescue vehicle for the Space Station.
Neil Armstrong and Eugene Cernan wrote a letter concerning Obama's plan to cancel the Constellation program, which MSNBC quotes him as saying, "For the United States, the leading spacefaring nation for nearly half a century, to be without carriage to low Earth orbit and with no human exploration capability to go beyond Earth orbit for an indeterminate time into the future, destines our nation to become one of second- or even third-rate stature." I think that the Orion spacecraft could be our next big step in the human exploration of the moon and beyond, and I can agree with the astronauts that we cannot give up this endeavor. I think it would be unreasonable to rely on the Russians to bring our American astronauts into space for too long.
According to the New York Times, Obama also said, "we can’t just keep on doing the same old things we’ve been doing and thinking that’s going to get us where we want to go." I would like to know what exactly Obama thinks is old because I believe that NASA has created certain goals for itself, such as eventually sending humans to Mars, and NASA intends to pursue those goals.
However, perhaps Obama's vision for the future of NASA is commendable in a certain regard: over the next five years, he will increase NASA's budget by $6 billion. Also, he seems to be redirecting NASA's mission towards exploration of Mars (by 2030), asteroids (by 2025), and beyond, instead of concentrating on low-earth orbit. The Times claims that Obama's visions is "a call for private industry to innovate its way to Mars, rather than a call for a national effort to demonstrate American predominance." Furthermore, Obama will devote $40 million in order to retain jobs involved with the space industry and he will create over 10,000 new jobs nationwide, which I think is a good idea since we would certainly lose a lot of jobs without the space program. Perhaps the only problem with all this is that Obama's timeline extends beyond his presidency and future presidents may have a different agenda.
I also thought it was interesting that Obama said:
Why spend money on NASA at all? Why spend money solving problems in space when we don’t lack for problems to solve here on the ground?... We have to fix our economy. We need to close our deficits. But for pennies on the dollar, the space program has fueled jobs and entire industries. For pennies on the dollar, the space program has improved our lives, advanced our society, strengthened our economy, and inspired generations of Americans. And I have no doubt that NASA can continue to fulfill this role.
I suppose it is nice to hear that our President has faith in the space program, but I wonder if this speech was enough to rouse public support for the program. Obviously NASA has benefited us and can continue to benefit us, and NASA is really only a small portion of the United States budget. But maybe that does not necessarily mean that Americans have to support the space program because we have no real initiative like we did during the Cold War. We are only pursuing this because we feel like it—and I am all for that. I am just not so sure that the American public is completely for that. We need more faith in the space program.
Articles Read:
- MSNBC: "First Moonwalker Blasts Obama's Space Plan"
- NASA: Transcript of Obama's speech, April 15, 2010
- New York Times: "Obama Vows Renewed Space Program
- Space.com: "All Space Out: Past Presidents' Cosmic Visions" (with comments from Roger Launius, whom we have read in class)
- Wikipedia: the Orion spacecraft
April 10, 2010
Robonaut
Yesterday, I saw a documentary from Scientific American about some of the new advancements in robotics. I learned about Robonaut, which is being developed at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. Robonaut has these sensors all over its hands so that it can grip things, and basically act just like a human. Unlike other robotic spacecraft, such as the Mars Exploration Rovers, which are meant to explore, Robonaut is intended to perform specific tasks, particularly to do prep work. For example, on the International Space Station, Robonaut could set up all the equipment for an EVA, the astronauts can come out and work, and then Robonaut will clean up after the EVA. Or, if we went to Mars, we could send Robonauts ahead of time to set up a habitable place for the astronauts.
I definitely think that Robonauts could be useful to us in this manner because it provides a decent balance between robotic spaceflight and human spaceflight. Robonaut can enhance our experience in space because it can perform some of the mundane tasks that take up a lot of time while the astronauts perform more important work. Plus, maybe we can establish a more emotional connection with Robonaut because it so greatly resembles another human being and it can respond to our speech and gestures. So, this reiterates the conclusions drawn from our class presentations: as we look towards future space travel, I think it is important that we continue to pursue human spaceflight, while working cooperatively with robots.
I really liked what one of the developers of Robonaut said about humans and robots working together in space: it's like going to the beach. We can send the robot to the beach to investigate the sand and pick up seashells to bring back for us. However, we will still want to go to the beach because it's nice there and it's fun. So, we have this nice compromise between humans and robots. I thought this was a really great analogy, but one thing I can comment on is that going to the beach is different from going into space. The beach, at least for us living on the seacoast, is really close by and of course it's fun to go there and relax on a hot summer's day. Yet, traveling into space is a lot father away and is a lot more risky, particularly because radiation in space is worse than a simple sunburn on Earth. Then again, if we properly prepare ourselves for the dangers in order to minimize our risk, I still believe we should pursue human spaceflight because that is what we love to do.
I definitely think that Robonauts could be useful to us in this manner because it provides a decent balance between robotic spaceflight and human spaceflight. Robonaut can enhance our experience in space because it can perform some of the mundane tasks that take up a lot of time while the astronauts perform more important work. Plus, maybe we can establish a more emotional connection with Robonaut because it so greatly resembles another human being and it can respond to our speech and gestures. So, this reiterates the conclusions drawn from our class presentations: as we look towards future space travel, I think it is important that we continue to pursue human spaceflight, while working cooperatively with robots.
I really liked what one of the developers of Robonaut said about humans and robots working together in space: it's like going to the beach. We can send the robot to the beach to investigate the sand and pick up seashells to bring back for us. However, we will still want to go to the beach because it's nice there and it's fun. So, we have this nice compromise between humans and robots. I thought this was a really great analogy, but one thing I can comment on is that going to the beach is different from going into space. The beach, at least for us living on the seacoast, is really close by and of course it's fun to go there and relax on a hot summer's day. Yet, traveling into space is a lot father away and is a lot more risky, particularly because radiation in space is worse than a simple sunburn on Earth. Then again, if we properly prepare ourselves for the dangers in order to minimize our risk, I still believe we should pursue human spaceflight because that is what we love to do.
April 1, 2010
Do Robots Have Brains?
According to NASA, the Mars rover Opportunity is getting smarter as it is getting older. The rover has greatly exceeded its expected lifespan, and it is now in its seventh year, so NASA took the liberty of installing some new software over the winter. Now Opportunity is capable of making its own decisions about the objects it wants to explore. The new technology is called AEGIS, which stands for Autonomous Exploration for Gathering Increased Science.
With the upgrade, Opportunity's wide-angle navigation camera can take pictures of the surrounding rocks and determine if the rocks meet specific criteria. For instance, it can look for a light-colored rock, and then it can use its narrow-angle panoramic camera to focus in on a specific rock and take pictures of it through three different filters. During a trial run, Opportunity found exactly the rock that the scientists wanted it to find.
Maybe if robots can start thinking on their own, like Opportunity, we will not need to send astronauts to the Red Planet. I wonder if this takes away from NASA's goals of reaching Mars and studying it. I mean, we still have dreams of actually setting foot on Mars, but if the robots can make their own decisions, maybe NASA will decide not to try to send humans to Mars. As NASA researcher Bret Drake said, "We're still looking at human exploration of Mars as one of the goals of the future at the top level."
Here is an article from Fox News on how NASA proposes to travel to Mars, where you can read more from Bret Drake.
With the upgrade, Opportunity's wide-angle navigation camera can take pictures of the surrounding rocks and determine if the rocks meet specific criteria. For instance, it can look for a light-colored rock, and then it can use its narrow-angle panoramic camera to focus in on a specific rock and take pictures of it through three different filters. During a trial run, Opportunity found exactly the rock that the scientists wanted it to find.
Maybe if robots can start thinking on their own, like Opportunity, we will not need to send astronauts to the Red Planet. I wonder if this takes away from NASA's goals of reaching Mars and studying it. I mean, we still have dreams of actually setting foot on Mars, but if the robots can make their own decisions, maybe NASA will decide not to try to send humans to Mars. As NASA researcher Bret Drake said, "We're still looking at human exploration of Mars as one of the goals of the future at the top level."
Here is an article from Fox News on how NASA proposes to travel to Mars, where you can read more from Bret Drake.
March 30, 2010
The Apollo Wives
I recently watched a documentary about the Apollo missions according to the wives of the astronauts. The wives felt that they had to create the perfect family because they were on the television so much and since the astronauts were seen as heroes, whom Americans could look up to.
However, I was quite surprised to learn that seven out of the ten women interviewed for the documentary had been divorced. The wife of Donn Eisele, from Apollo 7, said that she and her husband were divorced shortly after Apollo 7 returned home because he had been with another woman. Clearly, it was a stressful life for the Apollo wives, between the cameras constantly infiltrating their lives and the worry of not knowing whether their husbands would return home or not.
However, I was quite surprised to learn that seven out of the ten women interviewed for the documentary had been divorced. The wife of Donn Eisele, from Apollo 7, said that she and her husband were divorced shortly after Apollo 7 returned home because he had been with another woman. Clearly, it was a stressful life for the Apollo wives, between the cameras constantly infiltrating their lives and the worry of not knowing whether their husbands would return home or not.
March 28, 2010
“The Things They Carried” [into Space]
We have taken many missions into space over the last fifty years since NASA's founding, and we have not hesitated to bring along some of our most treasured historical mementos. For instance, Luke Skywalker's lightsaber prop from the Star Wars movies.
Besides that, a few small pieces from the Wright Flyer, which made its debut flight in 1903 and only managed to get a few feet off of the ground. Sixty-six years later, the airplane managed to fly all the way to the moon. Also, a lead cargo tag, which made the journey from England to Virginia in 1611, was uncovered at the Jamestown colony and then flown aboard the space shuttle.
Of course, we have left several things on the moon, including the first flag erected by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. Also, after hitting it with an improvised club, Alan Shepard left a golf ball during Apollo 14, while Charles Duke left a portrait of his family.
Furthermore, thousands of names have been brought into space aboard certain spacecraft, like Stardust and Dawn, via microchips.
Besides that, a few small pieces from the Wright Flyer, which made its debut flight in 1903 and only managed to get a few feet off of the ground. Sixty-six years later, the airplane managed to fly all the way to the moon. Also, a lead cargo tag, which made the journey from England to Virginia in 1611, was uncovered at the Jamestown colony and then flown aboard the space shuttle.
Of course, we have left several things on the moon, including the first flag erected by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. Also, after hitting it with an improvised club, Alan Shepard left a golf ball during Apollo 14, while Charles Duke left a portrait of his family.
Furthermore, thousands of names have been brought into space aboard certain spacecraft, like Stardust and Dawn, via microchips.
March 26, 2010
A Picture Is Worth 1,000 Words
Okay, so if one picture is worth 1,000 words, then that means that 100,000 pictures are worth 100,000,000 words? That's a lot of zeros. That's a lot of words. But that was the goal of the Expedition 22 crew aboard the International Space Station, which just landed on March 18, thus ending Commander Jeff Williams' five-and-a-half month stay on the station. Williams was actually trying to break his previous record from Expedition 13 in 2006, when he snapped 83,856 pictures.
 |
| Among the 100,000 photos taken by Commander Williams, an image of the Houston metropolitan area at night |
The number of pictures taken by all the crews that have manned the International Space Station totals 639,000 pictures.
Visit the 2008 "top ten" pictures taken from the International Space Station here.
March 24, 2010
Russian Mission to Mars
Phobos, meaning "fear," is a tiny moon, only spanning about 25 kilometers across, that orbits around Mars. Phobos is so small that it does not even have enough gravity to allow it to acquire a round shape, like our own moon. The Red Planet's other moon Deimos, meaning "panic," is even smaller. We have some theories about how these tiny moons came to orbit Mars, but we are still unsure. That's where Russia comes in with their new spacecraft, Phobos-Grunt.
The name comes from the Russian, Fobos-Grunt, for "Phobos Soil" because the primary objective for the mission is to collect and study soil samples and then bring them back to the earth. The last time material was collected from another world was in 1976, by Luna 24. The craft will also observe Mars and its environment, looking for past or potential life.
Furthermore, the craft will carry the LIFE experiment, which stands for the Living Interplanetary Flight Experiment. This experiment consists of sending some selective microorganisms—representatives from bacteria, eukaryota, and archaea—for a three-year interplanetary trip to see if they will survive. This experiment is designed to simulate a Martian meteoroid on a journey to the earth.
The idea for the Russian mission to Phobos came about in 1999, three years after a devastating loss when the Mars-96 craft broke up in the earth's atmosphere during launch. It was scheduled to launch in October 2009, but the mission was delayed and the next launch window is not until 2011. Below is a model of the spacecraft.
The name comes from the Russian, Fobos-Grunt, for "Phobos Soil" because the primary objective for the mission is to collect and study soil samples and then bring them back to the earth. The last time material was collected from another world was in 1976, by Luna 24. The craft will also observe Mars and its environment, looking for past or potential life.
Furthermore, the craft will carry the LIFE experiment, which stands for the Living Interplanetary Flight Experiment. This experiment consists of sending some selective microorganisms—representatives from bacteria, eukaryota, and archaea—for a three-year interplanetary trip to see if they will survive. This experiment is designed to simulate a Martian meteoroid on a journey to the earth.
The idea for the Russian mission to Phobos came about in 1999, three years after a devastating loss when the Mars-96 craft broke up in the earth's atmosphere during launch. It was scheduled to launch in October 2009, but the mission was delayed and the next launch window is not until 2011. Below is a model of the spacecraft.
March 22, 2010
“Hubble 3D”
A new film, called "Hubble 3D," was released on March 19, 2010. This film, documenting the flight of STS-125 in 2009, is narrated by actor Leonardo DiCaprio, starring the astronauts and the stars. Its run time is approximately 45 minutes.
The documentary was made possible by the IMAX 3-D cameras, which the astronauts were trained to operate in Houston, that were launched aboard the Atlantis shuttle mission, whose goal was repair and upgrade the Hubble Space Telescope. The cameras were running as the astronauts took five spacewalks to work on the telescope so that it could continue producing its amazing photographs of deep space. Also included in the documentary are the astounding images taken the Hubble telescope. And, of course, it is in 3-D, so all the stars in the telescope's stunning photographs come to life.
This is not the first time that IMAX 3-D cameras have captured images of work out in space: in 2001, the camera first ventured to the International Space Station.
The documentary was made possible by the IMAX 3-D cameras, which the astronauts were trained to operate in Houston, that were launched aboard the Atlantis shuttle mission, whose goal was repair and upgrade the Hubble Space Telescope. The cameras were running as the astronauts took five spacewalks to work on the telescope so that it could continue producing its amazing photographs of deep space. Also included in the documentary are the astounding images taken the Hubble telescope. And, of course, it is in 3-D, so all the stars in the telescope's stunning photographs come to life.
This is not the first time that IMAX 3-D cameras have captured images of work out in space: in 2001, the camera first ventured to the International Space Station.
March 20, 2010
Shrimp Surprise
In November 2009, at nearly 600 feet below the Windless Bight on the Ross Ice Shelf of Antarctica, NASA scientists dropped a borehole camera, hoping to capture some of the first images of what life is like beneath an ice shelf. The borehole camera actually consists of three cameras: one that looks forward, one that looks to the side, and one that looks backward. The scientists drilled an eight-inch diameter hole in which to drop the probe, and what they found below the ice shelf really surprised them: one little, orange shrimp swimming about.
The shrimp, who was seen via the backward-looking camera, has been identified as a three-inch long Lyssianasid amphipod. The Windless Bight is 12.5 miles away from any open water, and while all kinds of life forms can thrive in the Antarctic waters, the lone shrimp was still quite unexpected. One of the scientists explains, "We were like little kids huddling around, just oohing and aahing at this little creature swimming around and giving us a little show. It was the thrill of discovery that made us giddy; just totally unexpected."
So, of course the scientists have to wonder: if we can find life in some of the most unexpected places here on Earth, why could life not exist elsewhere in the universe?
Watch the video of the shrimp and read the NASA article here.
The shrimp, who was seen via the backward-looking camera, has been identified as a three-inch long Lyssianasid amphipod. The Windless Bight is 12.5 miles away from any open water, and while all kinds of life forms can thrive in the Antarctic waters, the lone shrimp was still quite unexpected. One of the scientists explains, "We were like little kids huddling around, just oohing and aahing at this little creature swimming around and giving us a little show. It was the thrill of discovery that made us giddy; just totally unexpected."
So, of course the scientists have to wonder: if we can find life in some of the most unexpected places here on Earth, why could life not exist elsewhere in the universe?
Watch the video of the shrimp and read the NASA article here.
March 14, 2010
March 20: Sun-Earth Day
This year, Sun-Earth Day takes place on March 20 and will be celebrated with a live webcast at 1:00 p.m. EDT, discussing electromagnetic force and magnetism, and specifically, magnetic storms. Sun-Earth Day actually consists of several events throughout the year designed to engage students in science and give them the opportunity to talk with scientists.
It is useful to learn about the sun, our closest star, because the sun dictates the space weather in our solar system. In fact, NASA says that "the largest, single, challenge for astronauts traveling to Mars will be to overcome exposure to solar storms and radiation." Also, in one second, the sun can convert 4 million tons of matter into energy.
View the Sun-Earth Day website here.
It is useful to learn about the sun, our closest star, because the sun dictates the space weather in our solar system. In fact, NASA says that "the largest, single, challenge for astronauts traveling to Mars will be to overcome exposure to solar storms and radiation." Also, in one second, the sun can convert 4 million tons of matter into energy.
View the Sun-Earth Day website here.
March 12, 2010
No News from Phoenix
In the dawn hours of August 4, 2007, NASA’s latest Mars lander, designated Phoenix, awaited its departure from Earth. Then, in a burst of fire and smoke, Phoenix rose into the air, fastened to a Delta II rocket and headed for the arctic region of the Red Planet. After traveling about 423 million miles, the craft landed on Mars on May 25 of 2008. It began to dig through the surface of the planet to reach the ice beneath. With equipment such as cameras, microscopes, and even ovens, Phoenix will study the history of the frozen water and attempt to identify conditions possible for microbial life. A weather station is also attached to Phoenix, used for tracking Mars’s atmosphere and weather. With the help of the Phoenix mission, humans will be ever closer to understanding the mysteries of Mars.
However, the Martian winters are always hard for the landers, like Phoenix, because of the lack of sunlight, which is needed to power the craft. The Phoenix lander was not even designed to withstand the winter, and it has already exceeded its mission length by two months. The Mars Odyssey orbiter is listening in for signals coming from Phoenix: listening periods were scheduled for January and February and Odyssey heard nothing. One final listening period is yet to come in early April, and maybe Phoenix will wake up by then.
However, the Martian winters are always hard for the landers, like Phoenix, because of the lack of sunlight, which is needed to power the craft. The Phoenix lander was not even designed to withstand the winter, and it has already exceeded its mission length by two months. The Mars Odyssey orbiter is listening in for signals coming from Phoenix: listening periods were scheduled for January and February and Odyssey heard nothing. One final listening period is yet to come in early April, and maybe Phoenix will wake up by then.
March 10, 2010
NASA “Webb-cam”
NASA has installed a new webcam so that we can watch the progress of the upcoming James Webb Space Telescope right on our computers. The Webb telescope is designed to observe deep space, and it is expected to launch sometime in 2014. It is a joint project between NASA, the European Space Agency, and the Canadian Space Agency.
The webcam is located in the Building 29 clean room at Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, and the image is updated once every minute. Of course, people will be visible mostly during normal work hours from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. EST. What an interesting way to actually view the work happening at NASA.
View the webcam here.
The webcam is located in the Building 29 clean room at Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, and the image is updated once every minute. Of course, people will be visible mostly during normal work hours from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. EST. What an interesting way to actually view the work happening at NASA.
View the webcam here.
March 8, 2010
Biofuel from Space Fruit
"What if space held the key to producing alternative energy crops on Earth? That's what researchers are hoping to find in a new experiment on the International Space Station." That is the recent headline on NASA's website, and it certainly caught my attention—surely it would entice the general public around the world.
The experiment, called National Lab Pathfinder-Cells 3, is utilizing the fruit jatropha curcas, which produces oil adequate for converting into biofuel, to determine if the effects of microgravity can help the plant cells grow faster, thus allowing for more biofuel production.
Some of the jatropha plant cell cultures went up to the International Space Station aboard space shuttle Endeavour (STS-130) last month and they will come back on Discovery (STS-131) in April. A set of control cultures is located at the University of Florida. Scientists will compare the two sets of cultures to see if microgravity induces any changes on the plant cells.
See the full article from NASA here.
The experiment, called National Lab Pathfinder-Cells 3, is utilizing the fruit jatropha curcas, which produces oil adequate for converting into biofuel, to determine if the effects of microgravity can help the plant cells grow faster, thus allowing for more biofuel production.
Some of the jatropha plant cell cultures went up to the International Space Station aboard space shuttle Endeavour (STS-130) last month and they will come back on Discovery (STS-131) in April. A set of control cultures is located at the University of Florida. Scientists will compare the two sets of cultures to see if microgravity induces any changes on the plant cells.
See the full article from NASA here.
March 6, 2010
No Electricity: Apollo 13 vs. Earth
After last weekend's wind storm, leaving us without electricity for two and half days, and now having read Chaikin's chapter on Apollo 13, I can appreciate the astronauts' struggle to return home. The explosion in the service module forced the crew to shut down power to the command module so that they might conserve what little battery power they had. They had to withstand forty degree temperatures—compared to our house which only got down to fifty degrees. They had to soar away from the earth—from home—and head towards the moon, which no longer seemed quite so appealing since the astronauts were instead just trying to survive.
However, even through all the stress of the precarious situation, the astronauts finally made it home, and I am so glad they did. If the lunar module descent engine burn had been unsuccessful, I could not imagine zooming past the earth, missing it by thousands of miles, and suddenly being deserted in space.
Maybe loss of electricity on the earth is inconvenient, but loss of electricity in space is life-threatening.
However, even through all the stress of the precarious situation, the astronauts finally made it home, and I am so glad they did. If the lunar module descent engine burn had been unsuccessful, I could not imagine zooming past the earth, missing it by thousands of miles, and suddenly being deserted in space.
Maybe loss of electricity on the earth is inconvenient, but loss of electricity in space is life-threatening.
March 4, 2010
Planet Earth
NASA has released some wonderful new images of the earth. A series of pictures, taken between June and September 2001 by the Moderate Resolution Imagining Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on board the Terra satellite, were then stitched together to form this one, high-resolution image:
See some more pictures, new and old (compare the above recent image with the 1972 image from Apollo 17!), here.
March 2, 2010
Response: Compelling Rationales for Spaceflight?
Roger Launius' essay, "Compelling Rationales for Spaceflight?" inspired some thinking on whether it is worthwhile to venture into space or not and I noticed a lot of parallels between his paper and my paper—how we have the same, basic arguments:
"1) Human destiny/survival of the species."
Though I certainly think that humans ought to pursue our inherent desire to explore space, this, I think, causes me the most trouble. Is it worth spending all that money just because we feel the need to explore? Wernher von Braun said that space travel was "as inevitable as the rising of the sun; man has already poked his nose into space and he is not likely to pull it back." I think that we may as well pursue those passions that give us pleasure and fulfillment. However, I do not think that it is necessary to colonize space: we were given the earth and I do not think it is right of us to "own" the rest of the universe.
"2) Geopolitics/national pride and prestige."
Do Americans need to be spurred by international competitiveness in order to pursue human spaceflight? If China begins making huge advancements in space travel, will we want to continue with our work? Are we still proud of our work, like we were in the 1960s? Will we do science for science's sake or for politics?
"3) National security and military applications."
Sending up satellites has become so commonplace, everyone does it. I am sure that the military finds space very useful for reconnaissance purposes, particularly during war. If we do not keep up, everyone will be spying on us and we will be spying on no one, and we may get left behind.
"4) Economic competitiveness and satellite applications."
Is "space tourism" a good incentive to go into space? Will that get people interested in human spaceflight, or will it cost so much money that only a select few will have the pleasure of experiencing weightlessness? Launius talks about space as a utopia: "In essence, the advocates [of spaceflight] have long believed that it is human destiny to become a multiplanetary species, not just as an end in itself, but because of the desire to create a utopian society free from the constraints of cultures on Earth." I do not feel that we should spread ourselves out across the solar system, colonizing the moon or Mars, for whatever problems we have on the earth, they will surely follow us into space.
"5) Scientific discovery and understanding."
Of course it is a nice amenity and it is a good idea to continue expanding our knowledge and our technological capabilities, but we cannot rely so heavily on technology. This was made clear during the power outages over the weekend due to the wind storm. It is quite difficult to take care of our basic needs, like food and water, when we rely on technology and suddenly lose it.
Most people can probably identify these five basic issues. But is there anything else? Are there any other motivators or deterrents, or can we no longer be original in our thinking? I almost just with there was a black and white answer, and yet there when it comes to talking about human spaceflight, there are so many shades of gray in between.
"1) Human destiny/survival of the species."
Though I certainly think that humans ought to pursue our inherent desire to explore space, this, I think, causes me the most trouble. Is it worth spending all that money just because we feel the need to explore? Wernher von Braun said that space travel was "as inevitable as the rising of the sun; man has already poked his nose into space and he is not likely to pull it back." I think that we may as well pursue those passions that give us pleasure and fulfillment. However, I do not think that it is necessary to colonize space: we were given the earth and I do not think it is right of us to "own" the rest of the universe.
"2) Geopolitics/national pride and prestige."
Do Americans need to be spurred by international competitiveness in order to pursue human spaceflight? If China begins making huge advancements in space travel, will we want to continue with our work? Are we still proud of our work, like we were in the 1960s? Will we do science for science's sake or for politics?
"3) National security and military applications."
Sending up satellites has become so commonplace, everyone does it. I am sure that the military finds space very useful for reconnaissance purposes, particularly during war. If we do not keep up, everyone will be spying on us and we will be spying on no one, and we may get left behind.
"4) Economic competitiveness and satellite applications."
Is "space tourism" a good incentive to go into space? Will that get people interested in human spaceflight, or will it cost so much money that only a select few will have the pleasure of experiencing weightlessness? Launius talks about space as a utopia: "In essence, the advocates [of spaceflight] have long believed that it is human destiny to become a multiplanetary species, not just as an end in itself, but because of the desire to create a utopian society free from the constraints of cultures on Earth." I do not feel that we should spread ourselves out across the solar system, colonizing the moon or Mars, for whatever problems we have on the earth, they will surely follow us into space.
"5) Scientific discovery and understanding."
Of course it is a nice amenity and it is a good idea to continue expanding our knowledge and our technological capabilities, but we cannot rely so heavily on technology. This was made clear during the power outages over the weekend due to the wind storm. It is quite difficult to take care of our basic needs, like food and water, when we rely on technology and suddenly lose it.
Most people can probably identify these five basic issues. But is there anything else? Are there any other motivators or deterrents, or can we no longer be original in our thinking? I almost just with there was a black and white answer, and yet there when it comes to talking about human spaceflight, there are so many shades of gray in between.
"The American public is notorious for its willingness to support programs in principle but to oppose their funding at levels appropriate to sustain them. Most are also in favor of NASA as an organization but are relatively unfamiliar with the majority of its activities and objectives and sometimes question individual projects."
I think one of the most important things is for NASA to continue working to educate the public on their projects so that we will not forget about the importance of astronomy and spaceflight. Additionally, perhaps the human spaceflight program will be a success if we try not to be one extreme or the next: we cannot abandon spaceflight, nor can we colonize the universe or go overboard with space tourism. Spaceflight, like food, is good in moderation. Therefore, since Americans never like their tax dollars to be wasted, even though they are anyway, maybe it would be more useful if we focus on NASA's principles, not their budget. Maybe it would be really useful if the government stopped spending so much money altogether. Maybe, I am just idealistic.
Chile Earthquake Changes Earth’s Rotation?
NASA scientists are claiming that the 8.8 magnitude earthquake that hit Chile last week has changed the earth's rotation, shortening the length of the day to 1.26 milliseconds. Apparently, the earthquake has caused the earth's figure axis to shift by three inches, but the figure axis is different from the north-south axis around which the earth rotates. The figure axis is offset from the north-south axis by thirty-three feet and represents the axis around which the earth's mass is balanced. The quake caused some of the earth's mass to shift vertically, hence shifting the figure axis.
Read the full article posted at Space.com.
Read the full article posted at Space.com.
February 28, 2010
Landings and Launches
My family and I are staying at a hotel right now because the horrible wind storm on Thursday knocked out power to our house and flooded Route 108. The electricity did finally return today and we will move back home tomorrow, though we still have no Internet.
Anyway, this week as I was reading chapter five of Chaikin's book, about the lunar landing, I began imagining myself traveling with Collins, Armstrong, and Aldrin. The imagery of the book made the event come alive, immortalizing it forever on the page: the stress of trying to land the lunar module on an unknown surface, Collins worriedly waiting back at the command module, the moon's beauty, the excitement of exploring a place where no human has ever been.
NASA is preparing for a launch at Cape Canaveral on March 3 for the GOES-P satellite (GOES stands for Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite). This is one satellite in a series, designed to provide the imaging for weather on the television.
Anyway, this week as I was reading chapter five of Chaikin's book, about the lunar landing, I began imagining myself traveling with Collins, Armstrong, and Aldrin. The imagery of the book made the event come alive, immortalizing it forever on the page: the stress of trying to land the lunar module on an unknown surface, Collins worriedly waiting back at the command module, the moon's beauty, the excitement of exploring a place where no human has ever been.
NASA is preparing for a launch at Cape Canaveral on March 3 for the GOES-P satellite (GOES stands for Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite). This is one satellite in a series, designed to provide the imaging for weather on the television.
February 23, 2010
Apollo 11: Disaster Waiting to Happen?
I was watching a documentary, called First on the Moon: The Untold Story (2005). Maybe it was over-dramatized, but it was interesting and included interviews with Buzz Aldrin and Andrew Chaikin. "Most people don't know just how close Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong came to death on their historic voyage. Now, with the discovery of a lost tape, insight from top scientists, and previously unreleased documents, we present the untold story." Apparently, the astronauts caught sight of aliens, saw strange flashes, and could have crashed during the lunar descent. However, there is a website refuting the documentary's claims, here (I guess it just goes to show how important it is to verify facts because one cannot necessarily trust a documentary just because it is on the Science Channel).
The documentary began by discussing the launch escape tower. If one of the first-stage rockets failed to start properly during launch, causing the rocket to veer into the launch tower, it would have been unlikely that the astronauts would have been able to fly free from the craft. It took two seconds from the detection of the problem to signaling the escape tower to abort the launch, but by that time, the entire craft would already be engulfed in flame.
Then, once the astronauts were in orbit around the earth, they caught sight of something strange out the window, looming in the distance. They were hesitant to say anything to mission control because they knew that all kinds of people would be listening to their radio transmission. So they cryptically asked about the location of their S-IVB rocket, which they had recently ejected. Mission control radioed back to say that the rocket was some 6,000 miles away. The film exclaimed that since it was not the rocket, it could only be a UFO, implying aliens. Now, what the documentary did not mention was that the astronauts concluded that the object was one of the panels which had been ejected from the upper stage.
After the UFO incident, the astronauts were attempting to sleep, but they kept seeing these bright flashes of light. These were attributed to "high-Z" particles, which is now something we understand better. They are subatomic particles that interact with the retina, causing a visual sensation.
Now for the most difficult part of the journey: landing on the lunar surface. The Eagle's computer had little more computing power than a digital watch, but it was in control of steering the spacecraft to the surface. Neil Armstrong had to take manual control when he realized that the computer was taking them towards a rough crater filled with giant boulders.
Maybe the mission was risky, but I do not think it was as dramatic as the film made it out to be. "Against all odds, Apollo 11 was coming home."
The documentary began by discussing the launch escape tower. If one of the first-stage rockets failed to start properly during launch, causing the rocket to veer into the launch tower, it would have been unlikely that the astronauts would have been able to fly free from the craft. It took two seconds from the detection of the problem to signaling the escape tower to abort the launch, but by that time, the entire craft would already be engulfed in flame.
Then, once the astronauts were in orbit around the earth, they caught sight of something strange out the window, looming in the distance. They were hesitant to say anything to mission control because they knew that all kinds of people would be listening to their radio transmission. So they cryptically asked about the location of their S-IVB rocket, which they had recently ejected. Mission control radioed back to say that the rocket was some 6,000 miles away. The film exclaimed that since it was not the rocket, it could only be a UFO, implying aliens. Now, what the documentary did not mention was that the astronauts concluded that the object was one of the panels which had been ejected from the upper stage.
After the UFO incident, the astronauts were attempting to sleep, but they kept seeing these bright flashes of light. These were attributed to "high-Z" particles, which is now something we understand better. They are subatomic particles that interact with the retina, causing a visual sensation.
Now for the most difficult part of the journey: landing on the lunar surface. The Eagle's computer had little more computing power than a digital watch, but it was in control of steering the spacecraft to the surface. Neil Armstrong had to take manual control when he realized that the computer was taking them towards a rough crater filled with giant boulders.
Maybe the mission was risky, but I do not think it was as dramatic as the film made it out to be. "Against all odds, Apollo 11 was coming home."
February 21, 2010
Space Shuttle Landing
After questioning whether STS-130, space shuttle Endeavour, was going to land tonight or not due to clouds above Florida, the craft will land at 10:20 p.m. EST. The next shuttle launch, Discovery, will take place in April. The International Space Station is 98% complete, but there are only four shuttle missions left.
[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="355" caption="Endeavour's landing track"]
Communications on the Space Station
In 2000, the space shuttle Atlantis, or mission STS-106, carried with it hardware to revolutionize communication with the International Space Station. This project was called Amateur Radio on the International Space Station, or ARISS, and allows students around the world to talk directly with the astronauts aboard the station in hopes of encouraging the students to study science and mathematics.
Clearly, the ARISS has been helpful because President Obama and a dozen middle school students from around the country recently called the crew aboard the space station on February 17. The students asked questions about what it is like to be in space.
See NASA's feature article on the call to the space station here, which includes the transcript of the conversation here.
Clearly, the ARISS has been helpful because President Obama and a dozen middle school students from around the country recently called the crew aboard the space station on February 17. The students asked questions about what it is like to be in space.
See NASA's feature article on the call to the space station here, which includes the transcript of the conversation here.
February 16, 2010
Spacewalk Number Three
At 9:09 p.m. EST on February 16, two of the astronauts from STS-130 will leave the International Space Station to go for a spacewalk. This is the third and final spacewalk of the mission. They will spend six and a half hours floating around to finish getting the Tranquility node ready. Though, before the astronauts can venture into space, they must spend the night in the Quest airlock. This is called the "camp out" procedure and ensures that the astronauts will not experience decompression sickness, or the bends, because it reduces the amount of nitrogen present in their blood. Before the airlock was installed on the space station in 2001, astronauts had to breath pure oxygen for several hours before they were able to go on a spacewalk.
February 15, 2010
Space Race: Were the Soviets Really Better?
As I continue reading more and more about NASA's Project Apollo and particularly Project Mercury, I have to wonder if the Soviets were really better at getting into space than the United States. It seems like NASA was having a lot of difficulties with spacecraft technology, while the Soviets did not. Throughout Project Mercury, nearly every mission had some sort of minor difficulty.
Mission MA-7 seemed particularly difficult to me. First off, Deke Slayton was the pilot originally scheduled to man the craft, but NASA was concerned about his heart problem and thought that it would be better for Scott Carpenter to take the mission. Then, once Carpenter had gone into orbit after the May 24, 1962 launch, the temperature in his space suit kept rising, reaching 102 degrees Fahrenheit. A tethered balloon experiment failed, plus the craft was running low on fuel the entire time. Even the successful MA-6 mission, when John Glenn became the first American in orbit, had its minor problems.
Meanwhile, the Soviets have already gone for months enjoying the satisfaction of having reached orbit first and they continue launching this, that, and the other thing. They even placed the first woman, Valentina Tereshkova, in orbit in 1963, and her flight alone was longer than all of the Mercury flights combined! Perhaps, if the Soviets indeed had as many difficulties as the United States, they covered up them up, no doubt. Or maybe the Soviets' technology was, in fact, better than that of the United States: their rockets were taller and heavier than ours and they had already placed several dogs and humans in space. But maybe the Soviets were able to reach space quicker because they were willing to take more risks than the United States and were not so concerned with safety.
The Americans seemed more cautious because they wanted every man that they sent into space to come back safely—President Kennedy said, "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth."
So, maybe the Soviets were not really better than the United States at reaching space: they simply took more risks.
By the way, the other thing that I have been wondering about lately is why there was a difference between the design of the American spacecraft versus the Soviet spacecraft? How did the Americans even come up with their ideas to build the first spacecraft—what kind of process did they use?
Mission MA-7 seemed particularly difficult to me. First off, Deke Slayton was the pilot originally scheduled to man the craft, but NASA was concerned about his heart problem and thought that it would be better for Scott Carpenter to take the mission. Then, once Carpenter had gone into orbit after the May 24, 1962 launch, the temperature in his space suit kept rising, reaching 102 degrees Fahrenheit. A tethered balloon experiment failed, plus the craft was running low on fuel the entire time. Even the successful MA-6 mission, when John Glenn became the first American in orbit, had its minor problems.
Meanwhile, the Soviets have already gone for months enjoying the satisfaction of having reached orbit first and they continue launching this, that, and the other thing. They even placed the first woman, Valentina Tereshkova, in orbit in 1963, and her flight alone was longer than all of the Mercury flights combined! Perhaps, if the Soviets indeed had as many difficulties as the United States, they covered up them up, no doubt. Or maybe the Soviets' technology was, in fact, better than that of the United States: their rockets were taller and heavier than ours and they had already placed several dogs and humans in space. But maybe the Soviets were able to reach space quicker because they were willing to take more risks than the United States and were not so concerned with safety.
The Americans seemed more cautious because they wanted every man that they sent into space to come back safely—President Kennedy said, "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth."
So, maybe the Soviets were not really better than the United States at reaching space: they simply took more risks.
By the way, the other thing that I have been wondering about lately is why there was a difference between the design of the American spacecraft versus the Soviet spacecraft? How did the Americans even come up with their ideas to build the first spacecraft—what kind of process did they use?
February 13, 2010
How to Garner Support for NASA
During the 1960s, President John F. Kennedy knew that he had to get Americans to the moon somehow. It was a matter of superiority over the Soviets. It was a matter of national pride. After Kennedy's assassination, it was a matter of memorializing the President's goals. So how can we inspire Americans to support NASA today?
On January 14, 2004, President George W. Bush gave a speech presenting his vision for future United States space travel. In his attempt to garner support for NASA, he focused mostly on the scientific advancements that Americans have achieved by traveling into space. He also announced several goals, including finishing the International Space Station and returning to the moon by 2020. Although, he did mention the inherent desire to explore space: "Mankind is drawn to the heavens for the same reason we were once drawn into unknown lands and across the open sea. We choose to explore space because doing so improves our lives, and lifts our national spirit. So let us continue the journey." However, I think that it will take more than forming goals and reiterating all the benefits of the human spaceflight program to encourage support for NASA.
According to an October 30, 2009 Newsweek article, "If Obama wants to send us even farther into space than JFK did, he'll need to capture our imaginations: to enchant us with fresh visions of what we'll find out there... a special role falls to the people in the imagination business: our creative artists. This doesn't mean that writers and filmmakers should propagandize on behalf of rocket-fuel appropriations, only that when they do great work about space... they refocus the public eye heavenward."
Americans are very driven by our culture and the media, and if we want to travel to the moon and beyond, it is important that NASA be presented in a positive manner, one that encourages us, just as Robert Goddard was encouraged by reading Jules Verne's books.
Also, we all have to do our part to support one another: "For the space program to achieve and sustain the public support it needs, it won't be enough for Obama to be his inspiring self, or for artists to enchant us with visions of life on Mars—NASA itself needs to help the public grasp that sending human consciousness 40 million miles into space can be its own mesmerizing reward."
The key word is mesmerizing. In today's society, that's what it takes to continue sending humans into space because we are driven by emotional experiences. Americans need to feel mesmerized, deep down in their hearts.
Read the transcript of President George W. Bush's speech about his vision for future space travel.
Read the entire Newsweek article here.
On January 14, 2004, President George W. Bush gave a speech presenting his vision for future United States space travel. In his attempt to garner support for NASA, he focused mostly on the scientific advancements that Americans have achieved by traveling into space. He also announced several goals, including finishing the International Space Station and returning to the moon by 2020. Although, he did mention the inherent desire to explore space: "Mankind is drawn to the heavens for the same reason we were once drawn into unknown lands and across the open sea. We choose to explore space because doing so improves our lives, and lifts our national spirit. So let us continue the journey." However, I think that it will take more than forming goals and reiterating all the benefits of the human spaceflight program to encourage support for NASA.
According to an October 30, 2009 Newsweek article, "If Obama wants to send us even farther into space than JFK did, he'll need to capture our imaginations: to enchant us with fresh visions of what we'll find out there... a special role falls to the people in the imagination business: our creative artists. This doesn't mean that writers and filmmakers should propagandize on behalf of rocket-fuel appropriations, only that when they do great work about space... they refocus the public eye heavenward."
Americans are very driven by our culture and the media, and if we want to travel to the moon and beyond, it is important that NASA be presented in a positive manner, one that encourages us, just as Robert Goddard was encouraged by reading Jules Verne's books.
Also, we all have to do our part to support one another: "For the space program to achieve and sustain the public support it needs, it won't be enough for Obama to be his inspiring self, or for artists to enchant us with visions of life on Mars—NASA itself needs to help the public grasp that sending human consciousness 40 million miles into space can be its own mesmerizing reward."
The key word is mesmerizing. In today's society, that's what it takes to continue sending humans into space because we are driven by emotional experiences. Americans need to feel mesmerized, deep down in their hearts.
Read the transcript of President George W. Bush's speech about his vision for future space travel.
Read the entire Newsweek article here.
February 12, 2010
The Solar Dynamics Observatory
On February 11, 2010, NASA launched a new satellite, called the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO), to travel to the sun. As its name suggests, the spacecraft will be studying the sun, with which we are still not very familiar. This mission is important because solar activity dictates the weather of the entire solar system, so the more we know about the sun, the more we can anticipate about our life on the earth.
The SDO will be placed in geosynchronous orbit so that it can effectively send its data back to scientists in New Mexico. According to NASA, the SDO will be collecting so much data, it will fill one CD's worth of information in only 36 seconds.
 |
| The Solar Dynamics Observatory, launched aboard an Atlas V rocket |
February 7, 2010
Launch Scrubbed
On February 7, 2010, within minutes of the early morning launch of space shuttle Endeavour (otherwise known as mission STS-130), it was scrubbed. NASA had concerns about the weather and decided that it would be best to hold off. Endeavour's launch was postponed until 4:14 a.m. EST on February 8. This will be the last night launch of the Space Shuttle Program.
I can imagine being one of those six astronauts on STS-130 awaiting that jubilant moment of lift-off. We're loaded into the flight deck and ready to launch, and excitement fills the air. Crowds are gathered all around Cape Canaveral to watch. And then the Launch Director radios in to tell us that it's a no-go for today. We have to do it all again tomorrow, but hopefully we'll get out there eventually, and then it will be amazing.
[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="226" caption="STS-123: A 2008 Endeavour night launch"]
[/caption]
I can imagine being one of those six astronauts on STS-130 awaiting that jubilant moment of lift-off. We're loaded into the flight deck and ready to launch, and excitement fills the air. Crowds are gathered all around Cape Canaveral to watch. And then the Launch Director radios in to tell us that it's a no-go for today. We have to do it all again tomorrow, but hopefully we'll get out there eventually, and then it will be amazing.
[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="226" caption="STS-123: A 2008 Endeavour night launch"]
[/caption]
February 6, 2010
Images of Pluto
Using pictures taken by the Hubble Space Telescope from 2002 to 2003, NASA has constructed new color images of Pluto (which, as you probably know, is no longer considered a planet: it is a plutoid, or dwarf planet). Pluto appears white, orange, and black, but scientists have noted that the dwarf planet is growing redder in color and its northern hemisphere is growing in brightness. This means that the planet is undergoing seasonal changes, just like we experience on Earth (seasons are dependent on the tilt of a planet; that is, a planet with no tilt has no seasons). NASA will be able to learn even more about Pluto when the New Horizons spacecraft passes by in 2015.
More from NASA.
More from NASA.
February 3, 2010
Sputnik 1
I really like how McNamara's Into the Final Frontier portrayed the Soviets' launch of Sputnik 1 (ironically translated into English as Companion 1), the first satellite in space. All around the world, people were able to tune their radios to hear the constantly taunting signal being emitted from the satellite, and it must have been pretty disturbing for the Americans to hear it and watch it passing overhead in the night sky.
Senator Lyndon Johnson provided some very interesting imagery, "That sky had always been so friendly, and it had brought us beautiful stars and moonlight and comfort; all at once it seemed to have some question marks all over it..." Now the sky was becoming a sort of battlefield: who would get out there and claim it first? The Soviets were already making a lot of progress, especially when they launched Sputnik 2, complete with scientific instruments and the dog, Laika.
Although it was fortunate that we were the first to actually put a man on the moon, it seems perhaps a little foolish that we became materialistic and spent time enjoying cars and television. Launching a satellite was not a priority for the United States—but even the Soviets had been a bit delayed in starting their satellite program.
I wonder what the difference was between the United States and the Soviet Union that allowed the Soviets to launch the first satellite? Was it because they were communist? Or did they have even more determination than the Americans because they had suffered such great losses during World War II?
Senator Lyndon Johnson provided some very interesting imagery, "That sky had always been so friendly, and it had brought us beautiful stars and moonlight and comfort; all at once it seemed to have some question marks all over it..." Now the sky was becoming a sort of battlefield: who would get out there and claim it first? The Soviets were already making a lot of progress, especially when they launched Sputnik 2, complete with scientific instruments and the dog, Laika.
Although it was fortunate that we were the first to actually put a man on the moon, it seems perhaps a little foolish that we became materialistic and spent time enjoying cars and television. Launching a satellite was not a priority for the United States—but even the Soviets had been a bit delayed in starting their satellite program.
I wonder what the difference was between the United States and the Soviet Union that allowed the Soviets to launch the first satellite? Was it because they were communist? Or did they have even more determination than the Americans because they had suffered such great losses during World War II?
January 29, 2010
Two Astronauts
Two astronauts whom I have met are—
Bill Anders: a pilot for Apollo 8 , which was the first manned lunar orbit mission (I met him when I went to the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for astrophysics for a conference).
Jay Buckey: he flew on STS-90 in 1998 and briefly delved into politics in 2008 when he ran for a New Hampshire Senate seat (I met him when I participated in the Astronomy Bowl 2009 at the McAuliffe-Shepard Discovery Center).
It is fascinating to realize that these men have been into space, especially considering that some people think that our missions to the moon were a hoax.
Bill Anders: a pilot for Apollo 8 , which was the first manned lunar orbit mission (I met him when I went to the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for astrophysics for a conference).
Jay Buckey: he flew on STS-90 in 1998 and briefly delved into politics in 2008 when he ran for a New Hampshire Senate seat (I met him when I participated in the Astronomy Bowl 2009 at the McAuliffe-Shepard Discovery Center).
It is fascinating to realize that these men have been into space, especially considering that some people think that our missions to the moon were a hoax.
A Cool Brown Dwarf
Today, as the New Hampshire windchill dipped below zero, making it one of the coldest days this winter, there is a new report about the, potentially, coolest sub-stellar object yet found outside our solar system. It is a brown dwarf, called SDSS1416+13B, with a temperature of approximately 200 degrees Celsius (or 400 degrees Fahrenheit).
A brown dwarf is an object of too low a mass to become a star, but is larger in mass than a gas giant, like Jupiter. Because brown dwarfs are typically quite cold, they are hard to detect, but it is easier to find them when scientists observe their infrared wavelengths. It was thus that SDSS1416+13B was found using the United Kingdom Infrared Telescope (UKIRT), located in Hawaii.
What is particularly interesting to scientists is the colorful nature of the brown dwarf. Peculiarly, the object's color changes from blue to red, depending upon which part of the spectrum it is observed in. Normally, such a cool object as a brown dwarf appears red. This differentiation in color may be a result of SDSS1416+13B's methane and water vapor atmosphere, which absorbs some of the infrared wavelengths and lets other infrared wavelengths pass through.
SDSS1416+13B orbits around another cool brown dwarf, named SDSS1416+13A, and it was discovered that these two are binary, meaning that they orbit around one another. Also, they are about fifteen to fifty light years away from us, which is relatively close considering that the Milky Way is 100,000 light years across.
More from Discover Magazine's Bad Astronomy blog.
A brown dwarf is an object of too low a mass to become a star, but is larger in mass than a gas giant, like Jupiter. Because brown dwarfs are typically quite cold, they are hard to detect, but it is easier to find them when scientists observe their infrared wavelengths. It was thus that SDSS1416+13B was found using the United Kingdom Infrared Telescope (UKIRT), located in Hawaii.
What is particularly interesting to scientists is the colorful nature of the brown dwarf. Peculiarly, the object's color changes from blue to red, depending upon which part of the spectrum it is observed in. Normally, such a cool object as a brown dwarf appears red. This differentiation in color may be a result of SDSS1416+13B's methane and water vapor atmosphere, which absorbs some of the infrared wavelengths and lets other infrared wavelengths pass through.
SDSS1416+13B orbits around another cool brown dwarf, named SDSS1416+13A, and it was discovered that these two are binary, meaning that they orbit around one another. Also, they are about fifteen to fifty light years away from us, which is relatively close considering that the Milky Way is 100,000 light years across.
More from Discover Magazine's Bad Astronomy blog.
January 28, 2010
Space Shuttle Launch
On February 7, space shuttle Endeavour is expected to launch as one of NASA's five final shuttle missions into space.
As the space shuttle program comes to a close this September, it is interesting to think how it started—January 27, 1967: the Apollo 1 fire. Essentially the result of carelessness and complacency, this incident came as a tragic blow to the Apollo program, but it demonstrated the need to revamp to ensure supreme safety. Though the Apollo 1 mission ended in disaster, it reduced the risk of experiencing another crisis and ensured that everyone would be ready in case there was another accident.
The Apollo 1 fire must have left many people wondering if Americans would ever make it to the moon. Now, however, we wonder if we will make it to Mars—and beyond.
*UPDATE* February 7, 2010
Space shuttle Endeavour's launch was postponed until 4:14 a.m. EST on February 8.
As the space shuttle program comes to a close this September, it is interesting to think how it started—January 27, 1967: the Apollo 1 fire. Essentially the result of carelessness and complacency, this incident came as a tragic blow to the Apollo program, but it demonstrated the need to revamp to ensure supreme safety. Though the Apollo 1 mission ended in disaster, it reduced the risk of experiencing another crisis and ensured that everyone would be ready in case there was another accident.
The Apollo 1 fire must have left many people wondering if Americans would ever make it to the moon. Now, however, we wonder if we will make it to Mars—and beyond.
*UPDATE* February 7, 2010
Space shuttle Endeavour's launch was postponed until 4:14 a.m. EST on February 8.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)