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.
February 28, 2010
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)