[Follow me on Twitter (@astroengine)]
[Check out my space blog: Astroengine.com]
[Check out my radio show: Astroengine Live!]
Hello! My name is Ian O'Neill and I've been writing for the Universe Today since December 2007. I am a solar physics doctor, but my space interests are wide-ranging. Since becoming a science writer I have been drawn to the more extreme astrophysics concepts (like black hole dynamics), high energy physics (getting excited about the LHC!) and general space colonization efforts. I am also heavily involved with the Mars Homestead project (run by the Mars Foundation), an international organization to advance our settlement concepts on Mars. I also run my own space physics blog: Astroengine.com, be sure to check it out!
[/caption]
India will send their first mission to the Moon in September. Chandrayaan-1 has been built and will be launched from Indian soil and sent on a mission to study the lunar surface. The Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) will use its highly successful Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) to get the lunar probe into space. This is an impressive mission for a small space agency, making huge strides in the exploration of space…
It seems like everybody is doing it these days. First, Russia did it (in 1959) by landing a probe on the lunar surface and taking pictures of the far side of the Moon. Then the Soviets put the first artificial lunar satellite into orbit in 1966. Not to be out done, President Kennedy had already begun the US quest to get man on the Moon, and in 1969 the superpower achieved that goal. For a long time it was only the two competitors in the Space Race who had visited the Moon, but in 1990, Japan joined the “Lunar Club” (with the Hiten spacecraft). Then in 1997 Hong Kong (China) succeeded in two flybys (HGS-1, a commercial satellite). Eventually, in 2006, the European SMART-1 space vehicle made it into lunar orbit. But since then, it’s been China (with the Chang’e program) and Japan (with SELENE, or “Kaguya”) who have been most active around the natural satellite.
And now there is a new kid on the block: India. One of the most populous nations in the world is pushing ahead with its own aspirations for lunar exploration. Although comparatively small, the Indian space agency ISRO was established in 1972 to develop space-based technologies in the aim of enriching the nation’s economy. Until the early 1990’s, India had to rely on Russia to launch payloads into space, but 1994 saw the first successful launch of the powerful Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV), lifting domestic and commercial satellites into orbit. Now the PSLV will launch India’s most valuable payload yet, the Chandrayaan-1 lunar orbiter and impactor. It is scheduled for launch on September 19th.
In a speech on India’s 61st Independence Day from the historic Red Fort in Delhi, the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called the Chandrayaan-1 mission “an important milestone” for the nation. However, although a date has been set for launch, some of the text seemed a little uncertain. “This year we hope to send an Indian spacecraft, Chandrayan, to the moon. It will be an important milestone in the development of our space programme,” Singh said. Whether the “we hope” was accidental or whether the launch date is only tentative remains to be seen.
Regardless, the mission appears to be good to go, obviously a huge boost to national pride. “I want to see a modern India, imbued by a scientific temper, where the benefits of modern knowledge flow to all sections of society,” he continued.
Falcon 1 lifts off from Kwajalein Atoll, South Pacific August 2nd (SpaceX)
[/caption]
On August 2nd, SpaceX made the surprise announcement that the third flight of the Falcon 1 rocket system would launch at 8pm (PST) that day. The world rushed to watch the first commercial flight of this impressive private-sector rocket via the web from a live feed on board. The first launch attempt was aborted due to a minor parameter fluctuation of 1% out of “normal” operating conditions, but the launch crew very quickly re-fuelled and prepared Falcon 1 for a second launch attempt within the hour. The second launch attempt appeared to be flawless, Merlin 1c engine roaring to life, lifting the rocket into the atmosphere. All seemed good, SpaceX seemed on track and very confident. However, minutes into the flight, the live video feed was cut and it was being reported an anomaly had occurred. It wasn’t until later in the week that SpaceX CEO Elon Musk gave details about the “anomaly.” SpaceX recently released video footage of the entire launch, up to the point where the stage separation problem occurred, spinning the ill-fated vehicle out of control…
So what did happen on that frustrating Sunday evening? On August 6th, Elon Musk announced the findings of the investigation into the launch anomaly. According to the launch engineers, the SpaceX Merlin 1c engine in the first stage performed perfectly. Even after the false-start on the launchpad, the engine was ready to go within the hour. This fast turnaround from launch abort to re-launch is a huge advantage for the company, a great testament to the flexibility of the technology SpaceX has developed in-house. The problems started during stage separation at an altitude of 35 km.
The problem arose due to the longer thrust decay transient of our new Merlin 1C regeneratively cooled engine, as compared to the prior flight that used our old Merlin 1A ablatively cooled engine. Unlike the ablative engine, the regen engine had unburned fuel in the cooling channels and manifold that combined with a small amount of residual oxygen to produce a small thrust that was just enough to overcome the stage separation pusher impulse. – Elon Musk, Aug. 6th statement.
From this statement and from viewing the video, it would seem that during first stage separation a small amount of fuel left over creating a small thrust just after the stages were forced away from one another (a.k.a. “stage separation pusher impulse”). At separation, it would appear that just as the first stage was beginning to fall away from Falcon 1, it regained some forward thrust, making it crash into the second stage engine. This small thrust anomaly prevented the spent first stage from falling clear of the igniting second stage. This sequence of events is captured in the series of screenshots below:
The Falcon 1 separation anomaly at an altitude of 35 km. From left to right: First stage separation appears to be going well until frame 3. Frame 4 shows the first stage thrust back into the second stage. Frame 5 shows the second stage firing when the first stage is not clear, Falcon 1 tumbles out of control (SpaceX)
As the first stage was not clear, the second stage engine fired into the spent first stage. This would have caused a loss in control in rocket trajectory. However, the SpaceX editors appear to cut the video from the instant the second stage fires to when the rocket is in full tumble, blacking the frames out in between with the text “Faring Separation.” It’s not obvious what this means and there is no mention of it in the accompanying text. Most probably it means the camera was blown away from the rocket after second stage ignition.
The anomaly was down to what has been called a “thrust transient” and Musk points the blame at the tiny thrust that couldn’t be measured on the ground during test firing as the force generated was simply too small to be detected. However, in the vacuum of zero-gravity space, any thrust, large or small, matters:
The question then is why didn’t we catch this issue? Unfortunately, the engine chamber pressure is so low for this transient thrust — only about 10 psi — that it barely registered on our ground test stand in Texas where ambient pressure is 14.5 psi. However, in vacuum that 10 psi chamber pressure produced enough thrust to cause the first stage to recontact the second stage – Elon Musk, Aug. 6th statement.
Although this event is an obvious set back, and deeply saddening for SpaceX and the owners of the payloads Falcon 1 was supposed to put into orbit, lessons have been learnt and Musk is positive the next launch will be a total success. After all, no one said rocket science was easy…
Dinner. The heros from Fly Me to the Moon are on the menu
[/caption]
On August 3rd, the new animated movie “Fly Me to the Moon” premiered at the Directors Guild of America Theatre in Hollywood, LA. In a very fortunate turn of events Fraser sent me there to watch the first US screening of this “made for 3D” space-exploration adventure. I’ve been bursting to write a review on the experience, but I had to wait until the film went on general release on August 15th before I could spill the beans. Now the day has come, here’s the inside story of this visually stunning tale about three flies (yes, the insects) that hitch a ride on the 1969 Apollo 11 mission to the Moon…
Firstly, I have to say nWave 3D technology is astonishing. The company uses 3D stereoscopy technique to, quite literally, make the characters in the movie jump out of the screen (with the help of polarizing glasses). If you’ve been to an IMAX theatre or a digital 3D studio before, you’ll know what I’m talking about, the characters look solid and very real. This was my first 3D experience, so I’m glad it was a space adventure experience too. OK, I’ve never reviewed a movie before, so I hope I do it justice…
Right at the start of the animated adventure, we begin with some history. In faux black-and-white, we are in one of NASA’s labs, preparing a monkey for an experimental trip into space. It is the late 1950’s or early 1960’s when it was commonplace to launch animals into space. So far, so good. The 3D looks good, and the 3D characters look crisp, looks like we’re in for a fun 84 minutes (the kids in the audience had a good laugh at the monkey’s expense as he was launched into space, the director was careful not to indicate the primate may not return!).
But the film, nor the 3D animation, had really begun. Part of the opening sequence, in colour now, involves a long sweep over Cape Canaveral, with the Saturn V rocket central to the scene. Moving over the water, your eyes take a while to focus on the shapes; you need to learn to relax your focus and treat the screen with more depth (especially when wearing a pair of unfashionable polarizing 3D glasses). Suddenly a dragonfly flies into shot and the 3D effect pops into being. There was no one in the audience who didn’t jump; the insect looked as if it was two feet away from your face, hovering above the seat in front (I was ten rows back from the screen). The kids in the audience (plus me) reached out to touch the animated creature, only for our hands to pass in front. Its effects like this that typifies the whole film, long tracking shots, 3D characters jumping out of the screen, vibrant colours bringing crisp clarity to each shot. Without the nWave 3D, the characters would probably be pretty bland, after all this doesn’t have the gravitas of a Disney-Pixar or Dreamworks production.
Sometimes you realise that the director wants you to experience everything the nWave technology can provide, sometimes making the fly-point-of-view flying sequences a little too long, but still delivering a visual delight. Unfortunately, this is probably the biggest drawback of the movie. Languishing in wonderful animated sequences, but filling the time with a basic script where even the rendered characters can seem a little wooden. I think the director misses the mark a little when trying to build up an audience rapport with the central characters; you find yourself thinking “get to the Apollo 11 launch already!”
That said, the youngsters in the crowd thoroughly enjoyed the antics of the three young flies: Nat (sensible yet adventurous, voiced by Trevor Gagnon), I.Q. (brainy and geeky, voiced by Philip Bolden) and Scooter (loud and brash, voiced by David Gore), it’s just a shame nWave didn’t build a little dual-humour into the plot which the likes of Toy Story or Finding Nemo were so good at (where a joke means one thing to an adult, but something totally different to a child – after all, you can only have so many burp jokes). But, this is a poor comparison; Fly Me to the Moon isn’t in the same league as these blockbusters. There is more of a focus on the big, space scene animation rather than plot or script. The 3D animated space sequences are what make this film, most certainly beating anything Pixar or Dreamworks can generate on a 2D screen.
For the first 20 minutes or so, we are based in the flies’ world; in the undergrowth and in the air, but as the story develops the fun really begins to start. Once Nat and co. find a way to join the Apollo 11 astronauts (after some entertaining encouragement from Nat’s Grampa, voiced by Christopher Lloyd, or “Doc” from his 1980’s Back to the Future fame), we arrive at some of the most visually stunning rendered scenes I have seen in an animated feature. For starters, the Saturn V lift-off is detailed with painstaking accuracy, reminiscent of Tom Hanks’ Apollo 13 launch sequence, only a little cleaner. As the rocket blasts through the atmosphere (probably a little too quickly for my liking), we’re suddenly in space and the Saturn V begins separation of its first stage. My second favourite part of the whole movie is the separation and re-docking of the lunar module whilst in lunar orbit, this will probably the closet you will come to actually “being there.” If you see the movie for one thing and one thing only, go and watch it for the wonderfully executed space vehicle scenes.
During the Apollo 11 voyage, the fly trio have a lot of work on their hands. For starters, mission control discover they have “contaminants” on board the command module, so throughout the film our miniature heroes are trying to dodge Armstrong’s bug spray can. There are some funny scenes, mainly focused around the always hungry Scooter, voiced by the very talented David Gore (although the “wind breaking escape scene” was a bridge too far for me). Nat, I.Q. and Scooter were also responsible for fixing a glitch in the Apollo 11 control panel apparently, replacing unplugged cable, leaving the crew to think they repaired the electrical fault. All the way through their adventure, the trio are being watched by their anxious Moms on Earth, managing to catch a glimpse of their young explorers via NASA footage (Nat’s mom, voiced by Kelly Ripa, constantly fainting and exclaiming “Lord of the Flies!” when ever a crisis unfolds; funny the first time, a bit tiresome after the third). There are also some evil Soviet Russian flies on Earth trying to undo the American flies space efforts; of course there needed to be a few “bad guys” (which, unfortunately, were surplus to requirements. If it wasn’t for the buxom Russian love interest, Nadia, there would be no point in including any baddies). The 1960’s era is captured wonderfully however, down to the fashion and music at the time.
Although this is obviously aimed at a younger audience, the stunning in-space animations will keep the 15+ crowd interested. And the entire movie is worth it for the famous Moon landing. There are a few technical inaccuracies, but they pass largely unnoticed as the astronauts touch down and Armstrong says his famous speech (although the producers did not use the archival transmission of Armstrong’s “One Small Step For Man…” line, which I thought was a strange decision). I really did feel excited by the lunar landing, seeing the command module in orbit, lunar module landing (“The Eagle has landed”) and animated Buzz and Neil hopping around in the Moon dust; it (almost) felt you were there.
All in all, this is a wonderfully valuable animated film that will engage kids more than adults, but it certainly isn’t boring, in fact, the time flew by. The fight sequences are too long and contrived, and a lot of the script is weak, but the voice talent is superb (especially Christopher Lloyd as “Grampa,” the lovely Nicolette Sheridan as “Nadia,” legendary British actor Tim Curry as evil “Yegor” and the young fly trio voices) and the 3D effects are incredible. Watching this movie was more of an “experience” than anything else, and although I felt my eyes getting a little tired from the changing focal depth for 84 minutes, the wonderful animated set-pieces kept me hooked.
Space exploration needs movies like this to engage and interest the next generation, and with cameo appearances by the likes of Buzz Aldrin only make movies like Fly Me to the Moon more valuable. Right at the end of the movie, Buzz makes an entertaining speech. Starting off with ‘Despite what you might have heard about the Moon landings…’ I thought he was referring to the flawed allegations of the faked NASA lunar landings, but he humorously continued, ‘…there were no contaminants on Apollo 11, flies did not land on the Moon!‘
Buzz Aldrin, ex-astronaut, second man on the Moon and all-round nice guy (Ian O'Neill)
The best thing about the whole premier experience was to meet and chat to the legendary astronaut himself, such a polite and friendly guy who has a lot of time for fans, reporters and photographers. I also met Tim Curry, an actor I’ve enjoyed for many years, ever since his infamous appearance in the 1975 cult classic “The Rocky Horror Picture Show.” Most of the rest of the cast was there for the screening, including the young voice talents (Gagnon, Bolden and Gore) with Nicolette Sheridan (famed for her Desperate Housewives character), Christopher Lloyd, Kelly Ripa (“Nat’s Mom”), Adrienne Barbeau (“Scooter’s Mom”) and Ed Begley Jr. (“Poopchev”), and probably quite a few I didn’t see. Besides, the after party was fun, involving lots of ice cream and cookies…
So, if you want to see a fun and wonderfully animated film with lots of entertainment for your kids, this is the film for you. Although some of the dialogue can be a little cringe-making, with fight sequences too long and “cheesy,” the animation makes up for many of these flaws, making this an entertaining family animation that can only help boost enthusiasm for space travel in the younger generation. Interestingly, the 10-year old sitting next to me in the screening asked his dad, “Why aren’t we still on the Moon?” At least Fly Me to the Moon has already gotten one young mind thinking…
…also, you’ll never look at maggots in the same light ever again…
As Nat, I.Q. and Scooter would say: “Adventure forever! Dreamers get swatted? Never!”
Fly Me to the Moon is now on general release in the US and Canada, but only in IMAX and 3D digital theatres.
The Georgia conflict causes more controversy for the ISS (Telegraph/NASA)
[/caption]
The conflict between Georgia and Russia over the disputed region of South Ossetia may have huge consequences for NASA’s ability to send astronauts to the International Space Station in the future. The US has criticised the Russian military action, prompting concerns for the future NASA use of the Russian Soyuz space vehicle. This comes at a particularly critical time, as concerns were already high due to the Shuttle decommissioning in 2010. The US is only allowed to use Soyuz up until 2011 as that is when the exemption from the Iran Non-Proliferation Act runs out. If US-Russian relations turn even more sour, an extension to the exemption may not be allowed, freezing the US out of any involvement with routine manned access into space. US Senator Bill Nelson (Democrat), an outspoken critic of the government’s funding of the US space program, has brought these concerns to light blaming the Bush administration for an over reliance on Russia for future space access…
The Iran Non-Proliferation Act of 2000 was signed by US Congress as a means to encourage Russian involvement in the nuclear ambitions of Iran to cease. The Act restricts US funding to Russia by limiting all purchasing of technology and services relating to the Space Station. A waiver was granted to NASA so the US could make use of the Russian Soyuz space vehicle, and it was hoped that the waiver would be renewed in 2011 so the US could still have manned access to space during the “5-year gap” between Shuttle decommissioning and Constellation completion. However, the lawmakers in Congress will be very reluctant to renew the waiver if relations between the US and Russia degrade, throwing NASA into a very difficult situation once the Shuttle is mothballed. This concern has been amplified since the military action in the disputed region of South Ossetia in Georgia, a US ally.
Regardless of whether the waiver gets renewed, Senator Nelson is deeply suspicious of Russia’s intentions when NASA will need to take Soyuz flights after 2010. Deteriorating US-Russia politics may result in “Russia denying us rides or charging exorbitant amounts for them,” he said on Tuesday. In response to the problem with the renewing of the Act waiver in light of the recent Georgia violence, he stated:
“It was a tough sell before [to Congress], but it was doable simply because we didn’t have a choice. We don’t want to deny ourselves access to the space station, the very place we have built and paid. It’s going to be a tougher sell now unless there are critical developments during the next 48 to 72 hours.” – US Sen. Bill Nelson
So have there been any critical developments in Georgia? Today, US Defence Chief Robert Gates warned that relations between the US and Russia will be damaged “for years” if Russia does not step down from aggressive operations in the region. The Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov responded by saying the rebelling Abkhazia and South Ossetia regions will never integrate back under Georgian rule. He also stated that the military has started to hand back the Georgian town of Gori, although a military presence will remain. So no, although the brunt of the military action by Russia appears to have calmed, there will still be huge pressure on the region and innocent civilians will be caught in the middle for some time to come.
The Polish missile system would be similar to the systems in California and Alaska (BBC News)
As if to make matters worse the US and Poland have just signed a defence deal, hosting part of the US missile shield to protect against rogue states launching missiles into Europe and the US. Russia has outright rejected the US proposal, saying that a US controlled system near its border will destabilize the military balance in the region. Today’s signing will only contribute to the tension between the two nations.
Nelson strongly believes the Iran Non-Proliferation Act waiver is “dead on arrival. Nobody thinks it’s going to happen, and the reality is there is no back-up plan for the space station.” Many critics believe the Act will have a self-defeating effect as it will stop NASA from accessing the $100 billion ISS investment. “There will be consequences not just for Russia but for the U.S. too,” Nelson added.
Chinese weather control rocket blasts off (Source: ImpactLab.com)
[/caption]
One thing is for certain, the Chinese cannot be accused of being subtle when it comes to insuring good weather for the biggest party on Earth. Sounding like a military operation, the Chinese government authorized the use of 1,104 cloud seeding missile launches from 4:00-11:39pm on Friday night to remove the threat of rain ahead of the 29th Olympic opening ceremony in Beijing. This was the first time the weather manipulation technique was used during any Olympic event in the history of the games. This summer period can be a very wet season for Beijing and officials have been concerned their moment of huge national pride would be a wash-out. But it would appear the 21 rain dispersal launch sites kept nature at bay and made sure the celebration fireworks didn’t get soggy…
Although cloud seeding remains a hugely controversial practice, both China and Russia are large-scale advocates of various delivery systems. In June, it was reported that during a Russian Air Force cloud seeding operation, a chunk of cement fell from the sky, making a hole in someone’s roof. Although this incident was quite entertaining (not, however, to the owner who vowed to sue the Kremlin), there are some very big local climate concerns associated with cloud seeding. Scientists have pointed out that weather manipulation can amplify drought conditions in one area or increase the risk of floods in another. It is an unpredictable practice at best, and often considered to be highly unreliable. However, the Chinese and Russian governments continue to seed clouds, in an attempt to disperse rain ahead of public holidays and events.
Chinese meteorologists claim that the weather manipulation rockets were highly effective ahead of the opening ceremony on Friday, keeping the skies clear and audience dry inside the main Olympic National Stadium (a.k.a. “The Birds Nest”).
“We fired a total of 1,104 rain dispersal rockets from 21 sites in the city between 4 p.m. and 11:39 p.m. on Friday, which successfully intercepted a stretch of rain belt from moving towards the stadium” – Guo Hu, Beijing Municipal Meteorological Bureau (BMB).
Cloud seeding station - An alternate use for an anti-aircraft gun (China Photos/Getty)
According to Xinhua news, Chinese meteorologists decided cloud seeding was the only option as the humidity was rising toward 90% and rain clouds had been tracked since 7:20am approaching the Chinese capital city. Under these conditions, scientists felt for certain rain would pour over the opening ceremony. “Under such a weather condition, a small bubble in the rain cloud would have triggered rainfall, let alone a lightening,” said Guo, presumably indicating that any slight instability in the atmosphere may have caused a storm.
Sounding more like a terror threat than a rain warning, the Beijing Municipal Meteorological Bureau issued a “Yellow Alert” (the third highest) for a thunderstorm at 9:35pm, with heavy rain hitting downtown Beijing soon after. According to officials, at 10:42pm, the clouds had been dispersed and the opening ceremony remained storm-free. They also stated that other areas surrounding Beijing recorded heavy rain, possibly indicating that the focused cloud seeding campaign worked.
[/caption]
If you thought Pluto was going quietly and giving up its planetary status without a fight, think again. Leading astronomers have spoken out against the International Astronomical Union (IAU) decision to classify the dwarf planet as a “Plutoid,” described by some critics as a “celestial underclass.” The IAU decision was made after it was deemed that Pluto cannot be called a “planet.” Although the spherical rocky body can tick most attributes of being a “planet,” the IAU pointed out that Pluto is too small to be capable of gravitationally clearing its own orbit (plus it periodically crosses the path of Neptune’s orbit); it should therefore be called a “dwarf planet.” Back in June however, the IAU gloriously announced that Pluto should be now be re-classified as a “Plutoid” and any other Pluto-like planets should follow suit. But on Thursday, at a major conference in Maryland, leading astronomers will refute the Plutoid classification saying the IAU re-naming is confusing and unworkable…
It may be the smallest planet in the Solar System a Plutoid, but this little spherical rock is causing a lot of noise down here on Earth. In 2006, the IAU re-classified the definition of a planet to distinguish between the differences between the larger known planets with the smaller rocky bodies (such as the increasing number of observed Kuiper Belt objects). There are three defining characteristics of what a planet should be:
It is in orbit around the Sun.
It has sufficient mass so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape.
It has “cleared the neighbourhood” around its orbit.
Pluto fulfils #1 and #2, but fails on #3, it is simply too small to gravitationally clear its own orbit. So Pluto was caught right in the middle of the “planetary classification debate ’06” and incidentally failed on one count. If any object fulfils the first two planetary criteria, but fails on the last, the IAU would classify the celestial body as a “dwarf planet.” To complicate matters, Pluto also travels inside the orbit of the gas giant Neptune periodically, giving it the extra classification of being a Trans-Neptunian Object (TNO). Although Pluto is a “dwarf” by Solar System standards, it is one of the largest Kuiper Belt Objects (KBO) in the outer Solar System; a true King amongst dwarfs.
Pluto has had a hard few months after getting kicked out of the planetary club.
So, for two years, Pluto was stuck in no-man’s land. It had been re-classified as a dwarf planet and astronomy teachers had to re-write their teaching material. Websites like NinePlanets.org had to scrub the 9 and replace it with an 8; but also had the foresight to buy “EightPlanets.org.” Times were a little messy for Pluto. Then, in June this year, the IAU seemed to want Pluto to feel a little better. Not only was it the King of the Kuiper Belt, it would have an entire army of Pluto-like dwarf planets named after it. The IAU created the “Plutoid,” and as if to avoid any more confusion, it gave the classification a no-nonsense definition:
Plutoids are celestial bodies in orbit around the Sun at a semi major axis greater than that of Neptune that have sufficient mass for their self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that they assume a hydrostatic equilibrium (near-spherical) shape, and that have not cleared the neighbourhood around their orbit. Satellites of plutoids are not plutoids themselves. – The IAU definition of a Plutoid (June 11th 2008).
Got that? Good. But not everyone was happy, least of all Pluto. T-shirts have even been printed with the quote: “It’s okay Pluto, I’m not a planet either” (and yes, I have one), for anyone wanting to show their support for the struggling rocky body.
So this Thursday, some very prominent astronomers will take their case to the “The Great Planet Debate: Science as Process” conference at The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) in Laurel, Maryland. To cut a long story short, they want Pluto to be reinstated as a planet, thereby abandoning the term “Plutoid.”
Dr David Morrison, director of the NASA Lunar Science Institute in California, makes the point that if the largest planets in our Solar System can be called Gas “Giants” then it should be fine to call Pluto a “Dwarf” Planet. But in the current IAU classification, Pluto cannot be called a planet.
“It has never before been necessary for any organisation to define a word that has been in common every day use so I see no reason why it was necessary on this occasion. Astronomers use adjectives such as giant and dwarf to describe different subclasses of objects like planets, stars and galaxies, so why could Pluto not remain as a dwarf planet just as Jupiter is a giant planet. Also, around 90 per cent of the planets we know now are outside our solar system, but under the International Astronomical Union’s definition, they cannot be classed as planets.” – Dr David Morrison
So it would seem the classification of “planet” will remain a very exclusive club of eight under the IAU rules; only Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune will have this honour unless the scientists at the Great Planet Debate conference can convince the IAU otherwise. Mark Sykes, from the Planetary Science Institute, argues that only #2 of the IAU planet definition need be applied; it is therefore the shape, or roundness, of the object that defines whether it can be called a planet or not. If this definition were applied, the Solar System would expand to include 12 planets. This worries some traditional thinkers at the IAU. As our observational techniques improve, more planet candidates will be discovered, therefore making the Solar System wildly different than what it is now.
But if there are more “planets” out there, why shouldn’t more planets be added to the official eight we currently have? It sounds like the Pluto debate is far from over and it will be interesting to hear what the delegates have to say on Thursday…
An early parachute drop test for the Constellation Project (NASA)
[/caption]
At the end of last month, the Orion crew module and the Ares I rocket parachute systems underwent a series of drop tests. The “drogue parachute” that will gently slow the descent of the spent first-stage motor of the Ares vehicle appeared to function as expected over the Arizona skies. However, an Orion test failed, “programmer parachute” failing to correct the orientation of the test crew module, allowing the module to drop through the sky upside-down. The programmer parachute is intended to inflate before the main three parachutes are deployed to bring the re-entering Orion astronauts to land safely. This news has come from an internal memo referring to the Orion test drop back on July 31st; the successful Ares I drogue parachute drop was carried out on July 24th. So what went wrong with the Orion test-drop?
NASA engineers are continuing a series of parachute tests on Orion and Ares. The first parachute system to be employed in any given launch will be the Ares parachute recovery system (assuming the emergency jettison motor isn’t fired before then). At approximately 126 seconds into flight and at an altitude of 189,000 feet (58,000 m), the first Ares I stage will separate, letting the spent booster drop through the atmosphere. To ensure the engine can be re-used by subsequent Constellation launches, the booster’s nose cap will be jettisoned at 15,740 feet (4800 m), releasing a small pilot parachute, dragging a larger drogue parachute out to slow down the rapidly falling first stage.
The Ares I components (NASA)
The drogue is smaller than a conventional parachute and it is intended to slow the booster from 402 mph (647 km/hr) to 210 m/hr (338 km/hr), positioning the cylinder vertically. Only when this slowdown is achieved that the main three cluster of parachutes can be deployed to complete the descent and plunge into the Atlantic Ocean for retrieval.
It would appear that the essential drogue testing of the first stage Ares I booster worked flawlessly when tested by NASA at the U.S. Army’s Yuma Proving Ground near Yuma, Arizona on July 24th. The next drogue test is scheduled for October.
However, during the July 31st Orion parachute test-run, there was a slight technical hitch that gave the Parachute Test Vehicle (PTV) a violent spin and then thud into the ground. The “programmer” parachute is intended to “right” the orientation of the re-entering crew module as it descends, an essential task before the drogue parachutes can be deployed to rapidly slow the module (in a similar way to the Ares I system). Unfortunately, during this PTV test-drop, problems arose very quickly. As soon as the programmer parachute was deployed, it failed to inflate and therefore did not cause any drag. This happened as the programmer parachute was being buffeted by the turbulence in the wake of the PTV and stabilization parachutes. The PTV was therefore allowed to fall ungracefully, upside-down.
The Orion crew module (HowStuffWorks.com)
Continuing to drop, the programmer and stabilization parachutes were jettisoned (having not done their job very well), and drogue parachutes were deployed. As the PTV was falling out of control, the drogue parachutes were put under immediate strain and wrapped around the PTV, dynamic pressure causing the drogue to be cut away.
Having suffered some major whiplash, the PTV’s main bag retention system was damaged and failed. Continuing to fall, the main parachutes were deployed, two were ripped from the vehicle, forcing the PTV to hit the ground with only one parachute open. There are no details as to what damage was caused by this failed test, but I think we can assume the PTV’s bodywork will be dented (and I wonder if human cadavers were used on this particular drop. If they were, I wouldn’t want to be the first engineer on the scene!).
Although an obvious set-back for the Orion parachute system, the NASA memo highlights that it was a “test technique failure” and not a failure of the technology itself. Regardless, I am sure this issue will be ironed out soon enough as the Constellation Program continues to push ahead with development…
Rendering of a blue liquid metal... could this be what metallic helium looks like? Source: http://tinyurl.com/6lffol (waxellis)
[/caption]
The interiors of the two gas giants, Jupiter and Saturn, are pretty extreme places. With atmospheric pressures of around 70 million Earth atmospheres, the phases of material become a bit difficult to understand. Usually when we think of a liquid metal, we have thoughts about liquid mercury at room temperature (or the reassembling liquid metal T-1000 played by Robert Patrick in the film Terminator 2), rarely do we consider two of the most abundant elements in the Universe to be a liquid metal in certain conditions. And yet, this is what a team of physicists from UC Berkley are claiming; helium and hydrogen can mix together, forced by the massive pressures near the cores of Jupiter and Saturn, forming a liquid metal alloy, possibly changing our perception of what lies beneath those Jovian storms…
Usually planetary physicists and chemists focus most of their attention on the characteristics of the most abundant element in the Universe: hydrogen. Indeed, over 90% of both Jupiter and Saturn is hydrogen too. But within these gas giant’s atmospheres is not the simple hydrogen atom, it is the surprisingly complex diatomic hydrogen gas (i.e. molecular hydrogen, H2). So, to understand the dynamics and nature of the insides of the most massive planets in our Solar System, researchers from UC Berkley and London are looking into a far simpler element; the second most abundant gas in the Universe: helium.
Raymond Jeanloz, a professor at UC Berkeley, and his team have uncovered an interesting characteristic of helium at the extreme pressures that can be exerted near the cores of Jupiter and Saturn. Helium will form a metallic liquid alloy when mixed with hydrogen. This state of matter was thought to be rare, but these new findings suggest liquid metal helium alloys may be more common than we previously thought.
“This is a breakthrough in terms of our understanding of materials, and that’s important because in order to understand the long-term evolution of planets, we need to know more about their properties deep down. The finding is also interesting from the point of view of understanding why materials are the way they are, and what determines their stability and their physical and chemical properties.” – Raymond Jeanloz.
Jupiter for example exerts an enormous pressure on the gases in its atmosphere. Due to it’s large mass, one can expect pressures up to 70 million Earth atmospheres (no, that isn’t enough to kick-start fusion…), creating core temperatures of between 10,000 to 20,000 K (that’s 2-4 times hotter than the Sun’s photosphere!). So helium was chosen as the element to study under these extreme conditions, a gas that makes up 5-10% of the Universe’s observable matter.
Using quantum mechanics to calculate the behaviour of helium under different extreme pressures and temperatures, the researchers found that helium will turn into a liquid metal at very high pressure. Usually, helium is thought of as a colourless and transparent gas. In Earth-atmosphere conditions this is true. However, it turns into an entirely different creature at 70 million Earth atmospheres. Rather than being an insulating gas, it turns into a conducting liquid metal substance, more like mercury, “only less reflective,” Jeanloz added.
This result comes as a surprise as it has always been thought that massive pressures make it more difficult for elements like hydrogen and helium to become metal-like. This is because the high temperatures in locations like Jupiter’s core cause increased vibrations in atoms, thus deflecting the paths of electrons trying to flow in the material. If there is no electron flow, the material becomes an insulator and cannot be called a “metal.”
However, these new findings suggest that atomic vibrations under these kinds of pressures actually have the counter-intuitive effect of creating new paths for the electrons to flow. Suddenly the liquid helium becomes conductive, meaning it is a metal.
In another twist, it is thought that the helium liquid metal could easily mix with hydrogen. Planetary physics tells us that this isn’t possible, hydrogen and helium separate like oil and water inside the gas giant bodies. But Jeanloz’s team has found that the two elements could actually mix, creating a liquid metal alloy. If this is to be the case, some serious re-thinking of planetary evolution needs to be done.
Both Jupiter and Saturn release more energy than the Sun provides meaning both planets are generating their own energy. The accepted mechanism for this is condensing helium droplets that fall from the planets’ upper atmospheres and to the core, releasing gravitational potential as the helium falls as “rain.” However, if this research is proven to be the case, the gas giant interior is likely to be a lot more homogenous than previously thought meaning there can be no helium droplets.
So the next task for Jeanloz and his team is to find an alternate power source generating heat in the cores of Jupiter and Saturn (so don’t go re-writing the textbooks quite yet…)
The Vasimir experiment (Ad Astra Rocket Corporation)
[/caption]
NASA Administrator Michael Griffin has announced his intentions to send an advanced spaceship propulsion prototype to the International Space Station for advanced testing. The Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (Vasimir) is currently in an experimental phase, but Griffin hopes that a scale model will be ready for one of the remaining Shuttle-ISS missions before 2010. The Vasimir concept bridges the gap between conventional (fuel hungry, high thrust) rockets and economical (fuel efficient, low-thrust) ion engines. Vasimir achieves this by using an ingenious method of ionizing and heating a neutral gas fuel…
It sounds like an idea from the “let’s do something useful with the Space Station” department in response to recent criticism about the quality of science that is being carried out on the $100 billion orbiting outpost. Michael Griffin, attended the July 29th AirVenture show in Oshkosh and was asked about the status of NASA’s advanced space propulsion research. In response he outlined plans to begin testing the Vasimir on board the ISS within the coming years. This possibly means that Vasimir will undergo vacuum testing on the outside of the station. (NOTE: This is not a propulsion device for the Space Station itself, it will remain in Earth orbit for the rest of its years, regardless of the optimistic idea that it could become an interplanetary space vehicle.)
Vasimir on the test-bed (Ad Astra Rocket Corporation)
The Vasimir uses a gas, like hydrogen, as a fuel. When injected, the engine turns the hydrogen into a plasma (a highly ionized state of matter). Through the use of intense radio signals emitted from powerful superconducting magnets, the engine is able to produce this plasma and energize it. The hot plasma is then focused and directed by a magnetic nozzle which creates thrust. The Vasimir turns out to be a very efficient way to get optimal thrust from minimal fuel (a quantity in rocket science known as “specific impulse”) through ionizing a fuel and accelerating it with a magnetic field. Such a technology is far more efficient than conventional rockets (as it uses less fuel) and provides more thrust than ion engines.
At the moment, the Vasimir looks as if it is in a “test-bed” phase of development, resembling something too large and unwieldy to be put into space, but Griffin is hoping a scale model may me taken to the ISS, possibly by one of the remaining Shuttle flights before 2010.
The engine itself is being developed by the Ad Astra Rocket Corporation and NASA signed a co-operation agreement with the company in 2006 in the hope of working on large-scale testing of rocket products. Naturally, Vasimir testing on board the Space Station would be of tremendous value in the research of this technology (but there is no mention that the Vasimir could be used as an ISS propulsion device, shame really).
A series of problems forced LHC shutdown (CERN/LHC)
[/caption]
It’s official, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will begin operations in a little over a month. On September 10th, the most sophisticated particle accelerator will go online, injecting the first circulation of accelerated particles. Actual experiments involving collisions will occur once scientists are satisfied the LHC is fully optimized and calibration is complete. The LHC has been undergoing “cool-down” for some time, ensuring the LHC’s eight sectors are approaching the 1.9K (-271°C) operational temperature (that is 1.9 degrees above absolute zero). All going well, on September 10th, the first beam will be accelerated to an energy of 450 GeV (0.45 TeV), the preliminary step on the path to attaining particle energies of 5 TeV, a record breaking target… awesome.
Earlier today, CERN announced that the LHC will be ready by September 10th to attempt to circulate a beam of particles. This news comes as the “cool-down” phase of LHC commissioning reaches a successful conclusion, cooling all eight sectors to 1.9 degrees above absolute zero. To manage temperatures this extreme has been a long and painstaking task, referred to as a “marathon” by the project leader:
“We’re finishing a marathon with a sprint. It’s been a long haul, and we’re all eager to get the LHC research programme underway.” – LHC project leader Lyn Evans.
Now scientists and engineers must synchronize the LHC with the Super Proton Synchrotron (SPS) accelerator, which is the last component in the LHC’s particle injector chain. For the system to work, the LHC and SPS must be synchronized to within a fraction of a nanosecond. This task is expected to begin on August 9th (Saturday). These calibration tasks are expected to continue through August and into the beginning of September, preparing the LHC for its first particle injection on the 10th.
The LHC will accelerate particles to relativistic velocities, accessing energies previously unimaginable. Once the LHC reaches its optimum design specification (possibly by 2010), it will generate beams seven-times more energetic and 30-times more intense than any other particle accelerator on the planet. The accelerator ring lies below the Swiss countryside with a circumference of 27 km (17 miles).
