Posted on by Ian O'Neill

US Space Station Crew’s Orbital Presidential Vote

NASA astronaut, Michael Fincke (Expedition 18 commander) will vote from orbit (NASA)

[/caption]Astronauts realise that there are some things they will miss out on. Whilst living on the International Space Station (ISS) for months at a time they may miss out on their child’s first words, they may forget to record the new season of Heroes, they may also miss out on a terrestrial celebration of their birthday.

While many of these things can upsetting or frustrating, say if you’re in space when a life-changing event or historical moment for your whole country is about to occur? This is exactly what is going to happen for the two US astronauts currently looking down on their nation from the orbiting outpost. Tomorrow is Presidential Election Day, so Michael Fincke and Gregory Chamitoff are going to exercise their rights as American citizens (that only four astronauts have been able to do previously) to vote in their next leader…

Fincke and Chamitoff will be able to vote in tomorrow’s US election using a Texas law that was passed in 1997. The eleven year-old law extends the right that every ground-based adult American citizen takes for granted to the US astronauts carrying out their duties on the space station.

“So I’m going to exercise my privilege as a citizen and actually vote from space on Election Day,” the ISS Expedition 18 Commander Michael Fincke said before he left Earth. “I think the candidates this year are exciting in and of themselves. But hopefully we get people to realize what a privilege it is, and they exercise and get a chance to vote.” Fincke was launched on October 12th with cosmonaut Yuri Lonchakov and space tourist Richard Garriott on the Soyuz TMA-13 flight.

The 1997 Texas bill has allowed four astronauts to vote in the southern US state. Astronaut David Wolf was the first space-based ballot to be cast in the ’97 Houston election from the Russian Space Station Mir. Then Leroy Chiao (2004 ISS Expedition 10 commander) was able to vote in the last presidential election. In 2006 and 2007, astronauts Michael Lopez-Alegria and Clayton Anderson were also able to cast their votes during separate space station missions.

This year, both orbiting astronauts are urging American citizens to get to their local polling places, as regardless of who is being voted for, the right to vote is a privilege. “Voting is the most important statement Americans can make in fulfilling a cherished right to select its leaders,” Fincke said in a patriotic NASA TV video with Chamitoff. “So this Election Day, take time to go to the polls and vote. If we can do it, so can you.”

It all sounds great, but how do astronauts actually vote in space?

The Texas bill allows astronauts to cast an absentee ballot from space with the help of the County Clerk of Harris and Brazoria counties (containing Houston). A secure electronic ballot is then sent to the ISS via mission control from the Clerk’s Office. Separately, an email is sent to the astronauts on board the space station with login information to the secure ballot. Once completed in orbit, the secure ballot is sent back to Mission Control and then forwarded to the Clerk’s Office.

“I was thankful for everyone making it possible for me to vote from space,” Leroy Chiao said. “I think it was an important symbolic gesture. Also, it was important to me personally.” Chiao added that making the space vote possible also encouraged ordinary US citizens to make the short trek down to their local polling station.

Source: MSNBC

Posted on by Ian O'Neill

ISS Space Junk Re-Entered Without Incident, 550km South of Australia (Updated)

My impression of the EAS beginning atmospheric re-entry (NASA images, edit by Ian O'Neill)

[/caption]

The Early Ammonia Servicer (EAS), the largest chunk of debris ever jettisoned from the International Space Station (ISS) had a fight with Earth’s atmosphere, and lost. Reports by amateur astronomers on November 2nd suggested that the speeding EAS had probably re-entered, as its expected orbital pass was not observed. Now calculations by US Space Command suggest any surviving EAS debris dropped into the Indian Ocean Pacific Ocean, 550km south of Tasmania, where any sightings of the resulting fireball would be unlikely…

The double-refrigerator-sized EAS was dropped from the ISS on July 23rd, 2007 to begin its long spiral journey toward the Earth’s atmosphere. At the time, NASA calculated that the EAS would take approximately 300 days to reach the planet below, but its degrading orbit took a little longer than expected. Eventually NASA was able to say for sure that the re-entry window would occur some time on Sunday (Nov. 2nd), 15 months after it was detached from the station. The operation to remove the defunct 1400 lb (635 kg) piece of equipment included a spacewalk lasted for nearly eight hours.

Although it might seem like a precarious decision by NASA to allow an uncontrolled re-entry of an object as big as the EAS — especially as it was predicted that up to 15 pieces, some as big as 17.5 kg (40 lb), may survive re-entry, hitting the ground at 100 mph — but the problems associated with keeping the ammonia-filled EAS on board the station were far more acute. After all, 70% of the Earth’s surface is water, and the likelihood of debris impacting populated regions was very small. Even so, NASA warned, “If anybody found a piece of anything on the ground Monday morning, I would hope they wouldn’t get too close to it.”

The first news to come to light about the EAS demise came from an amateur astronomer in Horizon City, Texas, who was using a low-light camera to try to capture the November 2nd flyby. “But the EAS did not appear,” said Thomas Dorman on Sunday. “I think it is safe to assume EAS has reentered.”

Today, it would appear a better idea of the EAS re-entry location has been calculated. The EAS re-entered over the Indian Ocean South Pacific Ocean, south of Tasmania at nearly 5am GMT:

US Space Command reports that the Early Ammonia Servicer (EAS) probably reentered Earth’s atmosphere on Nov. 3rd at 04:51:00 GMT +/- 1 minute over the following coordinates: 48° S, 151° E. That would place the fireball over the Indian Ocean [Pacific Ocean] south of Tasmania where sightings are unlikely. – SpaceWeather.com

More information about the EAS final orbital trajectory can be found on the real-time satellite tracking website.

If any pieces of the EAS survived re-entry, it looks as if they fell into the Indian Ocean South Pacific Ocean without incident, and (so far) without any eye-witnesses…

Update (Nov. 4th):

Google Earth view of the EAS re-entry co-ordinates (Google/Ian O'Neill)
Google Earth view of the EAS re-entry co-ordinates (Google/Ian O'Neill)

On following up a reader’s comment on the EAS re-entry, I decided to do some research myself. With reference to the Google Earth snapshot above, it would appear the EAS debris fireball occurred pretty close (approximately 550 km) to the southern-most state of Australia, Tasmania.

Also, according to the original news release, the SpaceWeather.com source quoted the re-entry co-ordinates as 48° S, 151° E. The Indian Ocean is delineated from the Pacific Ocean along the 147° east meridian (i.e. 147° longitude). Therefore, at 151° E quoted as the longitudinal co-ordinate of re-entry is clearly in the South Pacific Ocean and not the Indian Ocean. Corrections to the original article have been made above.

Source: SpaceWeather.com

Posted on by Ian O'Neill

Largest Ever Piece of Space Station Junk to Hit Earth Tomorrow

The Easy Ammonia Servicer (EAS) photographed on July 23rd, 2007, by ISS astronauts. Watch your heads, it's re-entering tomorrow! (NASA)

[/caption]The Early Ammonia Servicer (EAS) weighs 1400 lb (635 kg), is the size of two refrigerators and it’s going to drop through the atmosphere some time tomorrow (Sunday, Nov. 2nd). Funny thing is, we don’t know where, and we don’t precisely know when. Will any of the defunct equipment survive re-entry? We don’t know that either, but it seems highly probable.

The EAS was dropped from the International Space Station in 2007, making it the largest piece of space junk ever dropped from the orbital outpost. At the time, it was believed the ammonia coolant-filled debris would only stay in orbit for 300 days; alas this was a huge underestimation, the EAS has been in orbit for 15 months. The final hours of the large chunk of space debris are being closely tracked by NASA and the U.S. Space Surveillance Network as a precaution. Although no bits of the EAS are expected to pose a danger to people on the ground, NASA’s space station program manager said “we just need to be cautious.”

The EAS was installed on the space station during a spacewalk by the crew of Discovery in 2001 during the STS-105 servicing mission. It was installed as part of the station’s emergency reserve coolant system, but when the mature thermal control system was activated, the EAS became surplus to requirements and NASA had to devise plans to remove the equipment. At the time, this posed a tricky problem – after all, you can’t just throw junk overboard, what happens if it creates a future hazard for the ISS or other orbiting craft?

Eventually a solution was found. Astronaut Clay Anderson led a 7 hour 41 minute EVA with cosmonaut Fyodor Yurchikhin and robotic arm operator Oleg Kotov to throw the EAS overboard, toward the Earth on July 23rd, 2007. They did this just before a re-boost by the Soyuz spacecraft docked with the station at the time. By doing this, the EAS assumed a slowly deteriorating spiral orbit toward Earth whilst the space station increased its altitude, avoiding any possibility of encountering the discarded EAS on future orbits.

In July, I reported that the EAS had reached an ideal altitude for astronomers to catch a glimpse of it through their telescopes. The speedy +4 to +4.5 magnitude object had been spotted by many amateur astronomers.

Any observation opportunities are about to come to an abrupt end, however. Some time on Sunday, the EAS will succumb to atmospheric drag and drop toward the ground. As to whether any debris from the re-entering EAS will hit the ground, NASA believes that up to 15 pieces of the ammonia storage tank might survive the high temperatures. The pieces are predicted to range in size from 40 grams (1.4 oz) to 17.5 kg (40 lb). It is most likely these pieces will land in the ocean, but if any of the debris hits solid ground, they will be travelling at 160 km/hr (100 mph).

It is unlikely that any part of the EAS will be a risk to people or property, but Mike Suffredini, NASA’s space station program manager, warns, “If anybody found a piece of anything on the ground Monday morning, I would hope they wouldn’t get too close to it.” After all, should any of the toxic ammonia stored inside the EAS survive re-entry, it could pose a health risk. (Having said that, I would think a man-made meteorite travelling at 100 mph would also be considered a “health risk,” let’s just hope re-entry occurs over 2/3 of the planet covered with water…)

Update: According to SpaceWeather.com, little is known about where the EAS will re-enter the atmosphere, “At the moment, every continent except Antarctica has some favorable ground tracks.” We had a much better idea as to where and when asteroid 2008 TC3 hit Earth, perhaps we need to tighten up on the space junk re-entry problem (although I’d expect it’s much harder to predict the upper atmospheric dynamics than orbital trajectories of incoming meteoroids).

Sources: Space.com, MSNBC

Posted on by Ian O'Neill

Google and NASA are Working on an Interplanetary Internet

The Interplanetary Internet concept

[/caption]In an initiative energized by Google Vice-President and Chief Internet Evangelist Vint Cerf, the International Space Station could be testing a brand new way of communicating with Earth. In 2009, it is hoped that the ISS will play host to an Interplanetary Internet prototype that could standardize communications between Earth and space, possibly replacing point-to-point single use radio systems customized for each individual space mission since the beginning of the Space Age.

This partnership opens up some exciting new possibilities for the future of communicating across vast distances of the Solar System. Manned and robotic space craft will be interconnected via a robust interplanetary network without the problems associated with incompatible communication systems…

“The project started 10 years ago as an attempt to figure out what kind of technical networking standards would be useful to support interplanetary communication,” Cerf said in a recent interview. “Bear in mind, we have been flying robotic equipment to the inner and outer planets, asteroids, comets, and such since the 1960’s. We have been able to communicate with those robotic devices and with manned missions using point-to-point radio communications. In fact, for many of these missions, we used a dedicated communications system called the Deep Space Network (DSN), built by JPL in 1964.”

Indeed, the DSN has been the backbone of interplanetary communications for decades, but an upgrade is now required as we have a growing armada of robotic missions exploring everything from the surface of Mars to the outermost regions of the Solar System. Wouldn’t it be nice if a communication network could be standardized before manned missions begin moving beyond terrestrial orbit?

“When we launch a spacecraft with a unique set of sensors onboard, we often end up writing special communication and application software that is adapted to that spacecraft’s sensor systems and manipulators,” Cerf said in response to the challenges space missions face each time they are designed.

The Internet uses standard TCP/IP protocols so billions of online entities are always compatible. Although there are limitations to the Internet, it has proven to be a highly flexible and scalable system, so with the help of Google, NASA hopes to push the Internet beyond Earth. “The Interplanetary Internet project is primarily about developing a set of communication standards and technical specifications to support rich networking in space environments,” Cerf added.

This all sounds very interesting, but the challenges with building such a system require some novel techniques. How do you deal with the limitation of the speed of light? After all, it can take light 40 minutes to travel to-and-from Mars, and up to 12 hours to Pluto and back. How do you cater for planetary rotation? The transmitters/receivers won’t always be on the correct side of the planet. What happens if a satellite signal is blocked by a planet, the Sun or a moon?

Vint Cerf says the disruption of data transmission has to be confronted with a delay- and disruption-tolerant networking system, otherwise known as DTN. “It will allow us to maintain communications more effectively, getting much more data because we don’t have to be in direct line of sight with the ultimate recipient in order to transfer data,” he said.

DTN will be based on store-and-forward methods used by TCP/IP systems; if there is a disruption in signal, the transmitting station will hold data packets until the signal is re-established. However, DTN will be more robust, catering for long transmission lag-times (such as the many-hour light transmission times between Earth and the outer Solar System). “We have to cope with the fact that there is a really high potential for delay and disruption in the system,” he added.

Standard TCP/IP protocol should also work seamlessly with the DTN, allowing planetary missions to have their own distributed Internet whilst using DTN as a link through interplanetary space.

This has obvious applications for future manned missions to Mars, after all, can you imagine the first colonists without their own blog?

Source: Technology Review

Posted on by Ian O'Neill

More Ares I Development Problems: Is it Really That Bad?

Ares I leaves Earth (NASA)

[/caption]There’s been a lot of bad news surrounding the development of the Constellation Program of late. We’ve had news of general design flaws, rebelling NASA engineers, failed parachute tests, budget overruns, vibrational issues and job losses. Now we have a new one to add to the mix, the Ares I launch vehicle could bump into the launch tower during blast-off. According to a Florida report, only a tiny gust of wind is required to cause the rocket to hit the tower or scorch it, causing catastrophic failure and/or costly damage to the pad.

You’d be forgiven for thinking Constellation is a failed project, that is obviously going to overrun, obviously going to cost too much and is obviously a waste of time. But forget the media naysayers for a moment. Despite the challenges faced by NASA engineers, a bumpy road on the way to launching the most advanced rocket system ever devised is well worth the ride…

The Orion parachute test drop didn't go so well... (NASA)
The Orion parachute test drop didn't go so well... (NASA)

Back in August, I reported on the testing of the Ares and Orion parachute systems. Very little news was available about the Ares parachute successes, so the focus was placed on the spectacular failure of the Orion test vehicle, which fell to the ground like a stone (captured in full video glory). This wasn’t a critical failure of the technology, it was more of an experimental anomaly. After all, isn’t that what test flights are all about?

Heavy lift capability comes with a price (NASA)
Ares V: Heavy lift capability comes with a price (NASA)
Then there was much emphasis placed on the predicted vibrational problems facing Ares I during launch. Fortunately, as Nancy reported on August 19th, NASA engineers had a solution. Just when the NASA engineers thought they were winning, a few days later a report comes out saying the old Apollo era crawlerway would not be able to support the weight of a fully laden Ares rocket (cue more budget over-stretching).

More bad news has come from other areas too. During the transition from the Space Shuttle to Constellation, it was estimated that 8,000 jobs would probably be lost. Even after this projected number was reduced to 3,000-4,000 job losses, US Senator Bill Nelson said that NASA job losses and an increased dependence on Russian space vehicles will result in “generating jobs in Russia.” However, this argument may not hold water for much longer as the Russian Soyuz manufacturer has run out of money.

Protesting over job losses (Canaveral Port Authority)
Protesting over job losses (Canaveral Port Authority)
Now prepare yourself for some more bad news. The Orlando Sentinel has published an article entitled “Is NASA’s Ares doomed?” Oh dear.

This headline comes in response to computer models that show the Ares I rocket could get blown into the launch tower during lift-off. Ares I could experience “liftoff drift”, a phenomenon that occurs when the rocket’s solid-fuel motor ignites, making the 309 ft (100 m) Ares I “jump” sideways. If this should occur during a breeze of a little over 12 mph (19 kmh), Ares I could fall into its launch tower, or cause severe and expensive damage to the tower under the extreme heat of its boosters.

“We were told by a person directly involved [in looking at the problem] that as they incorporate more variables into the liftoff-drift-curve model, the worse the curve becomes,” said an anonymous NASA contractor. Contractors are not authorized to talk about Ares development, but the contractor continued, “I get the impression that things are quickly going from bad to worse to unrecoverable.”

The future of space travel - Artist impression of Ares V on the launchpad (NASA)
The future of space travel - Artist impression of Ares V on the launchpad (NASA)
But are these problems insurmountable? Surely NASA engineers will find a solution to this difficulty (much in the same way as they found an answer to the vibrational problems)?

“There are always issues that crop up when you are developing a new rocket and many opinions about how to deal with them,” said Jeff Hanley, Constellation Program manager. “We have a lot of data and understanding of what it’s going to take to build this.”

The Orlando Sentinel also posted information about continuing rifts in NASA pointing out that a growing number of engineers are quitting the Constellation program through fears of unrealistic goals and safety concerns, calling the whole Constellation concept into question.

“If they push hard enough, yes, it will fly,” said one disgruntled NASA engineer working on Ares. “But there are going to be so many compromises to be able to launch it, and it will be so expensive and so behind schedule, that it may be better if didn’t fly at all.”

In my view, any massive project like Constellation will attract its critics. Ares and Orion are new technologies where NASA engineers will have to make some huge strides to make it work. As already mentioned, the Ares rocket system is going to fly, but it might overrun in spending and schedule. However, all these challenges will be worth it when we see the first Ares I launch from Cape Canaveral in six or seven years time.

Astronaut Eugene Cernan from Apollo 17, the last mission to the Moon (NASA)
Astronaut Eugene Cernan from Apollo 17, the last mission to the Moon (NASA)
Never before have we had the opportunity to build a space technology not only used for transportation to the space station, it will be used to facilitate the next lunar mission, and eventually a trip to Mars. These projects come at a huge cost for the entire nation, but like the run-up to the Apollo missions in the 1960’s, the US needs to build an enthusiasm for the future of space flight. We are on the cusp of a huge advance for mankind, there’s no budget or timescale for that kind of achievement.

It may not be politically or economically realistic, but more money should be ploughed into NASA and Constellation. This is a momentous challenge requiring a momentous effort from the nation. Let’s just hope some of the spending promises of the presidential candidates last beyond November 4th…

Original source: Orlando Sentinel

Posted on by Ian O'Neill

Ham Radio Operator Communicates with Space Station

Radio equipment (Palos Verdes Amateur Radio Club)

[/caption]A Canadian amateur radio operator had an 11 minute opportunity to listen out for the International Space Station (ISS) as it passed overhead on October 20th with space tourist Richard Garriott on board. Garriott was also using ham radio during his stay on board the station to communicate with other ham radio enthusiasts on the ground. Murray Crandon from Saskatchewan heard Garriott seeking contact and they exchanged call signs, but Crandon was aware Garriott had a lot of people to make contact with and kept his communication short…

“He just called, ‘CQ, this is Richard Garriott, NA1SS aboard the International Space Station,’ and then I just answered him with my own call sign,” Murray Crandon said.

“We didn’t have a lot of time and I wanted to respect everybody else’s opportunity to make a contact as well so we just exchanged our call signs … and we just moved on from there.”

Crandon is an 18-year ham radio veteran, so contacting Garriott was no new thing. He’d also been able to make contact with Charles Simonyi, another US space tourist on board the station, in April last year. He also had the opportunity to contact South Korea’s Antarctic base in the South Shetland Islands in March 2003. Whilst these amateur radio feats are impressive, Crandon wants to receive signals from even farther afield. “I suppose if they ever put a human on Mars, I’ll be listening,” he said.

Whilst ham radio might be considered rather “old fashioned” in the era of email, digital communication and satellite networks, listening out for other radio operators when scouring the radio frequencies remains a very popular hobby. It is also a powerful means for communities to support each other and for reliable emergency/disaster communications should the need arise. It also looks like it may be an efficient means to keep tabs on the space station crew.

It is estimated that six million people around the globe (and occasionally in orbit) are active ham radio operators.

On October 12th, Garriott was launched on board Soyuz TMA-13 with Expedition 18; he returned to Earth on October 24th after 10 days on board the station. During his stay Garriott performed a variety of science, education and commercial tasks including a series of ham radio communication events with students and the public.

Source: CTV

Posted on by Ian O'Neill

Russian Spacecraft Producer: No More Money for Soyuz

The Soyuz TMA-13 is transported to its launchpad for the Oct. 10th flight (AFP)

[/caption]The Russian spacecraft producer Energiya has warned that it might only have enough money to launch the next two Soyuz flights unless funds are raised urgently.

This situation poses a difficult problem for future access to the International Space Station. The spacecraft producer requires funding in advance to pay for the construction of future Soyuz vehicles, so unless a solution is found, the launch of Expedition 19 that is expected to be carried by the Soyuz TMA-15 (around May 2009) could be the last…

Just when we thought getting access to the International Space Station (ISS) was hard enough, Energiya’s President Vitaly Lopota has announced his company has run out of money.

“We have vessels and funding for them for the next two trips, but I do not know what will happen with expeditions after that,” Lopota said on Friday. “We have no funds to produce new Soyuz craft. Unless we are granted loans or advance payment in the next two or three weeks, we cannot be responsible for future Soyuz production.”

According to other sources, the announcement came as Energiya failed to receive critical government-backed loans from commercial banks.

The Soyuz TMA-12 landed safely on Friday with cosmonauts Sergei Volkov, Oleg Kononenko and US space tourist Richard Garriott after being docked on the ISS for six months. Garriott did not stay for this period however, he was launched on October 12th with the crew of Expedition 18 (onboard Soyuz TMA-13 that will return in April next year). Friday was the first nominal landing of a Soyuz vehicle since TMA-9; both TMA-10 (Oct. 21st, 2007) and TMA-11 (April 19th, 2008) suffered separation anomalies, forcing “ballistic re-entries.” It must have been a relief for Volkov, Kononenko and Garriott to touch down on target, ending the spate of bad luck for Soyuz.

Soyuz is the primary method to get to and from the ISS (as you can probably guess from the above paragraph), and when the shuttle is retired in 2010, it will be the only method for the US to access the orbital outpost. However, this is a solution to the “5-year gap” between shuttle retirement and Constellation launch (scheduled for 2015) that many find difficult to come to terms with, especially with the increasing political discord between the US and Russia.

Even after US Congress signed a Iran-North Korea-Syria Nonproliferation Act (INKSNA) waiver earlier this month, permitting NASA to buy Soyuz flights after 2011, it looks like the problems haven’t ended for US manned access to space. The waiver will be useless if there’s no Soyuz vehicles being built!

Whether the warning from Energiya’s president should be taken seriously or not, once again US space flight is being restricted by internal problems in other countries. More initiatives like NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) Program need to be considered to further stimulate private sector space flight. Wouldn’t it make more sense to purchase US rocket launches with SpaceX after 2010 rather than buying Soyuz flights? Fortunately the private sector is catching onto this idea, so hopefully we’ll have dependable means to transport cargo to the ISS — possibly even crew — after 2010…

News source: Space Daily, MSNBC

Posted on by Ian O'Neill

US Air Force Increases Investment in Satellite Protection Technology

Artist impression of an anti-satellite missile (Jeremy Cook/Popular Mechanics)

[/caption]What does the US, Russia and China have in common? Yes, they’ve all sent a man into space and successfully carried out spacewalks using home-made spaceships, but they have another space-based attribute in common. They are all capable of shooting down satellites in Earth orbit. What’s more, all have proven it. So, we know for a fact that the technology is out there, and although it is still an extremely hard task, satellites are becoming more and more vulnerable to attack from the ground. Experts now believe that anti-satellite technology is within reach of rogue states and some well-funded terrorist groups, using nothing more than a medium range missile, a college-level team of individuals and some crude, yet effective, technology.

The US Air Force is now highlighting their concern by investing $29 million in companies to develop space-based warning and protection systems. The “star wars” threat is still out there…

In February, the warship USS Lake Erie fired a modified Standard Missile-3 at a defunct spy satellite called USA 193. The mission was a success, anti-satellite warhead slamming into the fast-moving target. BBC Washington correspondent Jonathan Beale likened the satellite shoot-down to “trying to fire a missile through the eye of a needle.” Although difficult, the US had proven they had the technology to destroy targets in Earth orbit from the ground. This demonstration of US capabilities was widely interpreted as a response to China’s unannounced weather satellite intercept the previous year. However, the US military maintain action needed to be taken as the dead spy satellite could re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere, carrying substantial quantities of toxic hydrazine fuel with it.

Regardless of the reasons for a satellite shoot-down, China and the US have shown their abilities when destroying a small target, travelling at high speed in Earth orbit. So now the concern is: what if a well-funded terrorist group or rogue state develop even the crudest anti-satellite technology? According to US military experts some serious damage can be done to military satellites, global positioning systems, weather satellites and even satellite TV systems should they be targeted. All that is needed is a medium-range missile carrying some kind of crude warhead; as long as the warhead collides with, or disrupts the satellite, the satellite will be useless. Although it is not believed there are any current plans by terrorist groups, the US Air Force wants to ensure the future safety of US interests in Earth orbit.

This signifies more investment in the Self-Awareness Space Situations Awareness (SASSA) program, hoping to develop and demonstrate an automated early warning system for space vehicles by 2010. The Air Force has provided $29 million in funds to companies such as Assurance Technologies and Lockheed Martin Space Systems to begin designing the hardware and software that will offer threat and hazard detection, assessment and notification.

The goal is to construct a payload that will identify threats to satellites and protect them from ground-based missile and laser threats.

Concern is growing for the wider use of anti-satellite weapons, so the US Air Force want to be one step ahead of any future threat to US interests orbiting the planet.

Source: Network World

Posted on by Ian O'Neill

Google Founders Buy Fighter Jet… to Help NASA

A Dornier Alpha Jet, similar to the one brought by Brin and Page (Adrian Pingstone)

[/caption]A company owned by Google’s founders has just bought a 1982 light attack Dornier Alpha Jet. H211 LLC owns several aircraft that are frequently used by Google Founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin and in an “unusual” agreement signed last year, H211 managed to get the rights to operate from an airstrip ten minutes away from Google HQ near the south end of San Francisco Bay, California. This isn’t any ordinary airstrip, it is Moffett Field, owned by the NASA Ames Research Center…

Not just anyone can land their private jet at Moffett Field. Located right next to Silicon Valley, it has had a lot of interest from the hi-tech billionaires to get permission to fly in and out of there. But there’s a problem, Moffett Field isn’t an ordinary airstrip, it is owned by NASA. NASA is a government department and with that comes certain rules. Unless the aircraft has a direct relationship with the NASA research being carried out, or a military flight, you’ll have to find somewhere else to land. So whether you’re Bill Gates or Queen Elizabeth — unless you need to land in an emergency — you cannot use the airstrip, unless you’re carrying out NASA business.

But, in an agreement that was described as a “win-win” situation for NASA, on July 31st, 2007 Ken Ambrose, Vice President of H211, signed a lease contract to park four aircraft at Moffett Field. These passenger aircraft included a Boeing 757, Boeing 767 and two Gulfstream Vs, regularly used by Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin to conduct business for H211 and Google (although both companies are separate entities). So how did they do this?

In exchange for use of the NASA site, H211 agreed that NASA could use its aircraft for scientific research (thereby helping NASA out with certain experiments in the fields of atmospheric chemistry, ozone depletion and wildfire monitoring), plus the cool sum of $1.3 million/year in rent.

But there was a problem, in order for NASA to use the fleet of four aircraft, it has to modify them. Each modification would require new certifications from the Federal Aviation Administration as the aircraft are passenger planes. This has been the main stumbling block, possibly causing Page and Brin to lose their aircraft parking spot.

So, H211 has bought a military aircraft to get around the FAA problem and still deliver on its promise for NASA to use its aircraft. The 26 year-old German-built light attack Dornier Alpha Jet can be modified by NASA, so it is currently being made ready for civilian use in Seattle before experiments can be carried out.

“The Alpha Jet they are bringing on board is considered an experimental aircraft, so we don’t have the same issues as with a passenger plane,” said Steve Zornetzer, associate director of the NASA Ames Research Center.

The Google executives flights account for less than 1% of the annual air traffic at Moffett Field. 88 flights out of approximately 19,000 of the last year’s flights were for Google business.

Or alternatively, Google is planning a (very) hostile takeover of Microsoft…

Sources: NY Times, SF Chronicle

Posted on by Ian O'Neill

Could Strange Mars Craters be from a Fallen Third Moon?

[/caption]Was there a third Martian moon orbiting the planet? Did Phobos and Deimos have a triplet sibling? According to the discovery of two elliptical impact craters, there might just have been another moon, but it ploughed into the Red Planet’s surface a long time ago. The moonlet would have been approximately 1.5 km wide (0.9 miles), and it will have succumbed to the Mars gravity, entering the atmosphere at a shallow angle. As it tumbled through the atmosphere it broke in two, hitting the surface and creating two elongated impact craters, near-perfectly aligned.

It is thought that the “third moon” of Mars dropped from orbit a billion years ago and the same will happen with Phobos in a few million years. However, there might be another explanation, with no third moonlet in sight…

Observations of the Martian surface, just north of Olympus Mons, show two oval-shaped craters (pictured top). Usually impact craters are approximately circular, so the elongated craters indicate the impactor(s) entered the atmosphere at a very shallow angle. This isn’t the only strange characteristic of these two craters. They lie 12.5 km (7.8 miles) apart and they are almost exactly aligned from east to west (they are off-alignment by only 3.48°). The larger crater is 10 km (6.2 miles) wide at its longest point, and the smaller crater is 3km (1.9 miles) wide.

There are two possible answers to this puzzle, but researchers are having a hard time in agreeing on which one. In a recent publication, John Chappelow and Rob Herrick of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, have calculated that the impact craters were caused by a small moon that entered the atmosphere, broke into two (due to atmospheric drag) and then struck the surface at an oblique angle of 10° or less. The moonlet would have been 1.5 km (0.9 miles) in diameter. This sounds feasible, after all for both craters to be aligned, one would think they came from the same mass, right?

NASAs Lunar Orbiter spacecraft imaged the Messier A (right) and B craters on the Moon. Messier A is about 11 km long (NASA)
The lunar Messier craters (NASA)
This moon-impact theory has a few drawbacks however. The first problem is that the impact craters are located at 40° latitude in Mars’ northern hemisphere. One would expect natural satellites to orbit around the equatorial plane if their orbits are stable (hovering around 0° latitude). “Any close natural satellite must, like Phobos, orbit in Mars’s equatorial plane,” said Jay Melosh, a crater expert at the University of Arizona in Tucson, who is highly sceptical of Chappelow and Herrick’s findings.

However, Herrick believes that the moonlet may not have established a stable orbit, above the equator. “We don’t know the details of the [moonlet’s] capture mechanism, so I don’t know that we can definitively say that the object must have moved to an equatorial orbit before spiralling in,” countered Herrick.

Artist impression of binary asteroid 90 Antiope (ESO)
Artist impression of binary asteroid 90 Antiope (ESO)
Melosh argues that the craters may have been caused by a binary asteroid (or “double asteroids”) entering the Martian atmosphere at a very shallow angle. After all, there is a confirmed example of a binary asteroid impact on the Moon (a.k.a. the Messier craters on the Moon, pictured above). Chappelow however disputed this claim saying, “In such a case, the craters should be oriented randomly.” After all, wouldn’t the binary asteroid have a randomly oriented orbital plane?

Apparently not. It appears that over hundreds of thousands of years of asteroid evolution, the effect of sunlight has a huge role to play in the dynamics of binary asteroid formation. A process known as the “Yarkovsky-O’Keefe-Radzievskii-Paddack Effect,” or the YORP Effect, causes the uneven heating of an asteroid. Carrying a tiny jolt of momentum, photons are emitted from the surface in jets, eventually causing the asteroid to spin. Eventually a piece of rock breaks loose, forming the binary asteroid. It would appear there is an observed trend for the majority of binary asteroids to orbit in the same plane as the rest of the Solar System.

So it seems possible that a binary asteroid could create the two elongated and aligned impact craters after all.

Regardless, whether a third moon or binary asteroid hit Mars, it will be of little comfort to Phobos. The moon (with a mean radius of 11 km) is slowly dropping in altitude due to tidal forces. In about 11 million years it will either crash into Mars or be ripped apart through gravitational shear. Either way, Phobos is a doomed moon.

Original Source: Space.com