Astronauts Kate Rubins (left) and Jeff Williams (right) looking out of the ISS' cupola at a SpaceX Dragon supply spacecraft. Until recently, the effects of long-duration missions on eyesight was something of a mystery. Credit: NASA
The ability to take part in long-term space missions is a rare privilege, usually enjoyed by only a handful of men and women within every generation. But that privilege comes with a pretty high price. In addition to all the hard work, training, and sacrifice that is needed to go into space, there are also the health effects of spending prolonged periods in a microgravity environment.
Until recently, the most well-document of these effects were muscle degeneration and loss of bone density. But thanks to a new study released by the Radiological Society of America, it is now understood how microgravity can impair eyesight. This is certainly good news for ISS crews, not to mention the astronauts who will be taking part in long-range missions to Mars and beyond in the near future.
For years, NASA and other space agencies have been seeking to understand how time in space can adversely affect eyesight. Nearly two-thirds of astronauts who have taken part in long-duration missions aboard the International Space Station (ISS) have been diagnosed with Visual Impairment Intracranial Pressure (VIIP) syndrome. Symptoms include blurred vision, flattening at the back of eyeballs, and inflammation of the head of the optic nerves.
Expedition 46 Commander Scott Kelly of NASA resting after returning to Earth in March, 2016. At the time, Kelly established the record for longest time spent in space. Credits: NASA/Bill Ingalls
Previously, scientists believed that the primary source of VIIP was a shift of vascular fluid toward the upper body that takes place when astronauts spend time in the microgravity of space. But thanks to the new study, which was led by Dr. Noam Alperin and his team of researchers from the University of Miami, the cause of the syndrome has been properly diagnosed.
Dr. Alperin is a professor of radiology and biomedical engineering at the Miller School of Medicine at the University of Miami and the lead author of the study. According to the study he and his colleagues produced – which was presented on Monday, Nov. 28th, at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America in Chicago – the culprit is cerebrospinal fluid (CSF).
This clear fluid is chiefly responsible for cushioning the brain and spinal cord, circulating nutrients and removing waste materials. At the same time, the CSF system is designed to accommodate significant changes in hydrostatic pressures, like when a person goes from lying down or sitting to a standing position. However, this system evolved within Earth’s own gravity environment, and exposing it to microgravity presents unique challenges.
As Dr. Alperin explained in a RSNA press statement, which coincided with the annual meeting:
“People initially didn’t know what to make of it, and by 2010 there was growing concern as it became apparent that some of the astronauts had severe structural changes that were not fully reversible upon return to Earth. On earth, the CSF system is built to accommodate these pressure changes, but in space the system is confused by the lack of the posture-related pressure changes.”
Astronaut Jeff Williams, who recently broke Kelly’s record for most time spent in space by a NASA astronaut. Credit: NASA
To arrive at this conclusion, Dr. Alperin and his colleague performed a series of before and after MRI scans on seven astronauts who took part in long-duration missions aboard the ISS. The results were compared against nine astronauts who took part in short-duration missions aboard the now-retired Space Shuttle. With the help of some special imaging algorithms, they looked for correlations between changes in CSF volumes and VIIP.
The results of their study Their study, titled “Role of Cerebrospinal Fluid in Spaceflight-Induced Visual Impairment and Ocular Changes“, showed that astronauts who participated in long-duration missions experienced a comparably higher flattening of their eyeballs and protrusions in their optic nerves. These astronauts also had significantly higher post-flight increases in CSF around their optic nerves and in the cavities of the brain where CSF is produced.
This study is both timely and significant, given the growing important of long-duration space missions. At present, it is expected that operations aboard the ISS will last for another decade. One of the most important activities there will be the study of the long-term effects of microgravity on human physiology, which will be intrinsic to preparing astronauts for missions to Mars and other long-range destinations.
Magnetic-resonance (MR) image of an astronauts eye before and after a long-duration space flight. Credit: RSNA
In short, identifying the origin of the space-induced ocular changes will help NASA and other space agencies to develop the proper countermeasures to protect the crew from potentially harmful changes to their eyesight. It will also come in handy for private space ventures that are hoping to send human beings on one-way trips to locations where the gravity is lower than on Earth (i.e. the Moon and Mars).
“The research provides, for the first time, quantitative evidence obtained from short- and long-duration astronauts pointing to the primary and direct role of the CSF in the globe deformations seen in astronauts with visual impairment syndrome,” said Alperin. If the ocular structural deformations are not identified early, astronauts could suffer irreversible damage. As the eye globe becomes more flattened, the astronauts become hyperopic, or far-sighted.”
As the old saying goes, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”. In addition to having regiments that will help maintain their musculature and bone density, astronauts taking part in long-term missions in the future will also likely need to undergo treatments to ensure their eyesight doesn’t suffer.
Detection of an unusually bright X-Ray flare from Sagittarius A*, a supermassive black hole in the center of the Milky Way galaxy. Credit: NASA/CXC/Stanford/I. Zhuravleva et al.
In 1971, English astronomers Donald Lynden-Bell and Martin Rees hypothesized that a supermassive black hole (SMBH) resides at the center of our Milky Way Galaxy. This was based on their work with radio galaxies, which showed that the massive amounts of energy radiated by these objects was due to gas and matter being accreted onto a black hole at their center.
By 1974, the first evidence for this SMBH was found when astronomers detected a massive radio source coming from the center of our galaxy. This region, which they named Sagittarius A*, is over 10 million times as massive as our own Sun. Since its discovery, astronomers have found evidence that there are supermassive black holes at the centers of most spiral and elliptical galaxies in the observable Universe.
Description:
Supermassive black holes (SMBH) are distinct from lower-mass black holes in a number of ways. For starters, since SMBH have a much higher mass than smaller black holes, they also have a lower average density. This is due to the fact that with all spherical objects, volume is directly proportional to the cube of the radius, while the minimum density of a black hole is inversely proportional to the square of the mass.
In addition, the tidal forces in the vicinity of the event horizon are significantly weaker for massive black holes. As with density, the tidal force on a body at the event horizon is inversely proportional to the square of the mass. As such, an object would not experience significant tidal force until it was very deep into the black hole.
Formation:
How SMBHs are formed remains the subject of much scholarly debate. Astrophysicists largely believe that they are the result of black hole mergers and the accretion of matter. But where the “seeds” (i.e. progenitors) of these black holes came from is where disagreement occurs. Currently, the most obvious hypothesis is that they are the remnants of several massive stars that exploded, which were formed by the accretion of matter in the galactic center.
Another theory is that before the first stars formed in our galaxy, a large gas cloud collapsed into a “qausi-star” that became unstable to radial perturbations. It then turned into a black hole of about 20 Solar Masses without the need for a supernova explosion. Over time, it rapidly accreted mass in order to become an intermediate, and then supermassive, black hole.
In yet another model, a dense stellar cluster experienced core-collapse as the as a result of velocity dispersion in its core, which happened at relativistic speeds due to negative heat capacity. Last, there is the theory that primordial black holes may have been produced directly by external pressure immediately after the Big Bang. These and other theories remain theoretical for the time being.
Sagittarius A*:
Multiple lines of evidence point towards the existence of a SMBH at the center of our galaxy. While no direct observations have been made of Sagittarius A*, its presence has been inferred from the influence it has on surrounding objects. The most notable of these is S2, a star that flows an elliptical orbit around the Sagittarius A* radio source.
S2 has an orbital period of 15.2 years and reaches a minimal distance of 18 billion km (11.18 billion mi, 120 AU) from the center of the central object. Only a supermassive object could account for this, since no other cause can be discerned. And from the orbital parameters of S2, astronomers have been able to produce estimates on the size and mass of the object.
For instance, S2s motions have led astronomers to calculated that the object at the center of its orbit must have no less than 4.1 million Solar Masses (8.2 × 10³³ metric tons; 9.04 × 10³³ US tons). Furthermore, the radius of this object would have to be less than 120 AU, otherwise S2 would collide with it.
As Reinhard Genzel, the team leader from the Max-Planck-Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics said:
“Undoubtedly the most spectacular aspect of our long term study is that it has delivered what is now considered to be the best empirical evidence that supermassive black holes do really exist. The stellar orbits in the Galactic Centre show that the central mass concentration of four million solar masses must be a black hole, beyond any reasonable doubt.”
Another indication of Sagittarius A*s presence came on January 5th, 2015, when NASA reported a record-breaking X-ray flare coming from the center of our galaxy. Based on readings from the Chandra X-ray Observatory, they reported emissions that were 400 times brighter than usual. These were thought to be the result of an asteroid falling into the black hole, or by the entanglement of magnetic field lines within the gas flowing into it.
Other Galaxies:
Astronomers have also found evidence of SMBHs at the center of other galaxies within the Local Group and beyond. These include the nearby Andromeda Galaxy (M31) and elliptical galaxy M32, and the distant spiral galaxy NGC 4395. This is based on the fact that stars and gas clouds near the center of these galaxies show an observable increase in velocity.
Another indication is Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN), where massive bursts of radio, microwave, infrared, optical, ultra-violet (UV), X-ray and gamma ray wavebands are periodically detected coming from the regions of cold matter (gas and dust) at the center of larger galaxies. While the radiation is not coming from the black holes themselves, the influence such a massive object would have on surrounding matter is believed to be the cause.
In short, gas and dust form accretion disks at the center of galaxies that orbit supermassive black holes, gradually feeding them matter. The incredible force of gravity in this region compresses the disk’s material until it reaches millions of degrees kelvin, generating bright radiation and electromagnetic energy. A corona of hot material forms above the accretion disc as well, and can scatter photons up to X-ray energies.
The interaction between the SMBH rotating magnetic field and the accretion disk also creates powerful magnetic jets that fire material above and below the black hole at relativistic speeds (i.e. at a significant fraction of the speed of light). These jets can extend for hundreds of thousands of light-years, and are a second potential source of observed radiation.
When the Andromeda Galaxy merges with our own in a few billion years, the supermassive black hole that is at its center will merge with our own, producing a much more massive and powerful one. This interaction is likely to kick several stars out of our combined galaxy (producing rogue stars), and is also likely to cause our galactic nucleus (which is currently inactive) to become active one again.
The study of black holes is still in its infancy. And what we have learned over the past few decades alone has been both exciting and awe-inspiring. Whether they are lower-mass or supermassive, black holes are an integral part of our Universe and play an active role in its evolution.
Who knows what we will find as we peer deeper into the Universe? Perhaps some day we the technology, and sheer audacity, will exist so that we might attempt to peak beneath the veil of an event horizon. Can you imagine that happening?
Messier 28, Messier 22 and Kaus Borealis. Credit: Wikisky
Welcome back to Messier Monday! In our ongoing tribute to the great Tammy Plotner, we take a look at the Globular Cluster known as Messier 28. Enjoy!
Back in the 18th century, famed French astronomer Charles Messier noted the presence of several “nebulous objects” in the night sky. Having originally mistaken them for comets, he began compiling a list of them so that others would not make the same mistake he did. In time, this list would come to include 100 of the most fabulous objects in the night sky.
One of these objects was the globular cluster now known as Messier 28. Located in the direction of the Sagittarius constellation, some 17,900 light-years from Earth, this “nebulous” cluster is easily detectable in the night sky. It is also the third largest known clustering of millisecond pulsars in the known Universe.
Description:
Compressed into a sphere measuring about 60 light years in diameter, globular star cluster Messier 28 happily orbits our galactic center about 19,000 light years away from Earth. In all of its thousands upon thousands of stars, M28 contains 18 known RR Lyrae variables and a W Virginis variable star. This very different variable is a Type II, or population II Cepheid that has a precise change rate which occurs every 17 days.
Image of Messier 28, based on observations made with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, and obtained from the Hubble Legacy Archive. Credit: STScI/NASA/ST-EFC/ESA/CADC/NRC/CSA
There has also been a second long period variable discovered, which could very well be an RV Tauri type, too. However, one of M28’s biggest claims to fame happened in 1986, when it became the first globular cluster known to contain a millisecond pulsar. This was discovered by the Lovell Telescope at Jodrell Bank Observatory. The work on the pulsar was later picked up by Chandra researchers.
As Martin C. Weisskopf (et al) of the Space Sciences Department put it in a 2002 study of the object:
“We report here the results of the first Chandra X-Ray Observatory observations of the globular cluster M28 (NGC 6626). We detect 46 X-ray sources of which 12 lie within one core radius of the center. We measure the radial distribution of the X-ray sources and fit it to a King profile finding a core radius. We measure for the first time the unconfused phase-averaged X-ray spectrum of the 3.05-ms pulsar B1821–24 and find it is best described by a power law with photon index. We find marginal evidence of an emission line centered at 3.3 keV in the pulsar spectrum, which could be interpreted as cyclotron emission from a corona above the pulsar’s polar cap if the magnetic field is strongly different from a centered dipole. We present a spectral analyses of the brightest unidentified source and suggest that it is a transiently accreting neutron star in a low-mass X-ray binary, in quiescence. In addition to the resolved sources, we detect fainter, unresolved X-ray emission from the central core.”
And the search has far from ended as even more X-ray counterparts have been discovered inside this seemingly quiet globular cluster! As W. Becker and C.Y. Hui of the Max Planck Institute wrote in their 2007 study:
“A recent radio survey of globular clusters has increased the number of millisecond pulsars drastically. M28 is now the globular cluster with the third largest population of known pulsars, after Terzan 5 and 47 Tuc. This prompted us to revisit the archival Chandra data on M28 to evaluate whether the newly discovered millisecond pulsars find a counterpart among the various X-ray sources detected in M28 previously. The radio position of PSR J1824-2452H is found to be in agreement with the position of CXC 182431-245217 while some faint unresolved X-ray emission near to the center of M28 is found to be coincident with the millisecond pulsars PSR J1824-2452G, J1824-2452J, J1824-2452I and J1824-2452E.”
The globular cluster Messier 28, image by the Hubble Space Telescope. Credit: NASA/ESA/HST
“We have analyzed archival HST/WFPC2 images in both the F555W & F814W bands of the core field of the globular cluster M 28 in an attempt to identify the optical counterpart of the magnetospherically active millisecond pulsar PSR B1821-24. Examination of the radio derived error circle yielded several potential candidates, down to a magnitude of V 24.5 (V0 23.0). Each were further investigated, both in the context of the CMD of M 28, and also with regard to phenomenological models of pulsar magnetospheric emission. The latter was based on both luminosity-spindown correlations and known spectral flux density behaviour in this regime from the small population of optical pulsars observed to date. None of the potential candidates exhibited emission expected from a magnetospherically active pulsar. The fact that the magnetic field & spin coupling for PSR B1821-24 is of a similar magnitude to that of the Crab pulsar in the vicinity of the light cylinder has suggested that the millisecond pulsar may well be an efficient nonthermal emitter. ASCA’s detection of a strong synchrotron-dominated X-ray pulse fraction encourages such a viewpoint. We argue that only future dedicated 2-d high speed photometry observations of the radio error-circle can finally resolve this matter.”
History of Observation:
This globular cluster was an original discovery in July 1764 of Charles Messier who wrote in his notes:
“In the night of the 26th to the 27th of the same month, I have discovered a nebula in the upper part of the bow of Sagittarius, at about 1 degree from the star Lambda of that constellation, and little distant from the beautiful nebula which is between the head and the bow: that new one may be the third of the older one, and doesn’t contain any star, as far as I have been able to judge when examining it with a good Gregorian telescope which magnifies 104 times: it is round, its diameter is about 2 minutes of arc; one sees it with difficulty with an ordinary refractor of 3 feet and a half of length. I have compared the middle with the star Lambda Sagittarii, and I have concluded its right ascension of 272d 29′ 30″, and its declination of 37d 11′ 57″ south.”
As always, Sir William Herschel would often revisit with Messier’s objects for his own private observations and in his notes he states:
“It may be called insulated though situated in a part of the heavens that is very rich in stars. It may have a nucleus, for it is much compressed towards the centre, and the situation is too low for seeing it well. The stars of the cluster are pretty numerous.” It would be his son, John Herschel who would give M28 its New General Catalog Number and describe it as “Not very bright; but very rich, excessively compressed globular cluster; stars of 14th to 15th magnitude; much brighter toward the middle; a fine object.”
The location of Messier 28, in the direction of the Sagittarius Constellation. Credit: IAU and Sky & Telescope magazine (Roger Sinnott & Rick Fienberg)
Regardless of whether or not you use binoculars or a telescope on M28, part of the joy of this object is understand how very rich the stellar field is in which it appears. As John Herschel once said of M28 in his many observations, “Occurs in the milky way, of which the stars here are barely visible and immensely numerous.”
Locating Messier 28:
Finding M28 is another easy object once you’ve familiarized yourself with the “teapot” asterism of the constellation of Sagittarius. In binoculars, simply center Lambda in the field of view and you will see Messier 28 as a small, faded grey circular area in the 1:00 position away from the marker star.
In the finderscope of telescope, you can start by centering on Lambda and go to the eyepiece and simply shift the telescope to the northwest slowly and Messier 28 will pop into view. While this globular cluster is easily bright enough to be seen in the smallest of optics, it will require at least a 4″ telescope before it begins any resolution of individual stars and telescopes in the 10″ and larger range will fully appreciate all it has to offer.
And here are the quick facts to help you get started:
Object Name: Messier 28 Alternative Designations: M28, NGC 6626 Object Type: Class IV Globular Cluster Constellation: Sagittarius Right Ascension: 18 : 24.5 (h:m) Declination: -24 : 52 (deg:m) Distance: 18.3 (kly) Visual Brightness: 6.8 (mag) Apparent Dimension: 11.2 (arc min)
The Sagittarius constellation, as imaged by the Hubble Space Telescope. Credit: IAU/NASA/ESA/HST
In May of 2016, the IAU Executive Committee approved of the creation of a special task force known as the Working Group on Star Names (WGSN). Composed of an international group of experts in astronomy, astronomical history, and cultural astronomy, the purpose of the WGSN is to formalize the names of stars that have been used colloquially for centuries.
This has involved sorting through the texts and traditions of many of the world’s cultures, seeking out unique names and standardizing their spelling. And after about six months, their labors have led to the creation of a new catalog of IAU star names, the first 227 of which were recently published on the IAU website.
This initiative grew out of the IAU’s Division C – Education, Outreach and Heritage group, which is responsible for engaging the public in all matters of astronomy. Their overall purpose is to establish IAU guidelines for the proposal and adoption of star names, to search historical and cultural literature for them, to adopt unique names that have scientific and historical value, and to publish and disseminate official IAU star name catalogs.
In this respect, the WGSN is breaking with standard astronomical practice. For many years, astronomers have named the stars they have been responsible for studying using an alphanumerical designation. These designations are seen as immensely practical, since star catalogs typically contain thousands, millions or even billions of objects. If there’s one thing the observable Universe has no shortage of, its stars!
However, many of these stars already have traditional names which may have fallen into disuse. The WGSN’s job, therefore, is to find commonly-used, traditional names of stars and determine which ones shall be officially used. In addition to preserving humanity’s astronomical heritage, this process is also intended to make sure that there is standardization in terms of naming and spelling, so as to prevent confusion.
What’s more, with the discovery of exoplanets becoming a regular thing nowadays, the IAU hopes to engage the international astronomical community in naming these planets according to their stars traditional name (if they have one). As Eric Mamajek, the chair and organiser of the WGSN, explained their purpose:
“Since the IAU is already adopting names for exoplanets and their host stars, it has been seen as necessary to catalogue the names for stars in common use from the past, and to clarify which ones will be official from now on.”
Artist’s impression of a system of exoplanets orbiting a low mass, red dwarf star. Credit: NASA/JPL
For instance, it can certainly be said that HD 40307 g – an exoplanet candidate that orbits within the habitable zone of its K-type star some 42 light years away – has a pretty clunky name. But what if, upon searching through various historical sources, the WGSN found that this star was traditionally known as “mikiya” (eagle) to the Hausa people of northern Nigeria? Then this super-Earth could be named Mikiya g (or Mikiya Prime). Doesn’t that sound cooler?
And this effort is hardly without precedent. As Mamajek explained, the IAU engaged in a very similar effort decades ago with respect to the constellations:
“A similar effort was conducted early in the history of the IAU, in the 1920s, when the 88 modern constellations were clarified from historical literature, and their boundaries, names, spellings, and abbreviations were delineated for common use in the international astronomical community. Many of these names are used today by astronomers for designations of variable stars, names for new dwarf galaxies and bright X-ray sources, and other astronomical objects.”
Much like the constellations, the new star names are largely rooted in astronomical and cultural traditions of the Ancient Near East and Greece. Their names are rendered in Greek, Latin or Aabic, and have likely undergone little change since the Renaissance, a time where the production of star catalogs, atlases and globes experienced an explosion in growth.
Others, however, are more recent in origin, having been discovered and named in the 19th or 20th centuries. The IAU is looking to locate as many ancient names as possible, then incorporate them into an official IAU-approved database with more modern stars. These databases will be made available for use by astronomers, navigators and the general public.
In accordance with WGSN guildines, shorter, one-word names are preferred, as are those that have their roots in astronomical, cultural or natural world heritage. The 227 names that have been released include 209 recently approved names by the WGSN, plus the 18 stars that the IAU Executive Committee Working Group for Public Naming of Planets and Planetary Satellites approved of in December 2015.
Among those names that were approved are Proxima Centauri (which is orbited by the closest exoplanet to Earth, Proxima b), as well as Rigil Kentaurus (the ancient name for Alpha Centauri), Algieba (Gamma-1 Leonis), Hamal (Alpha Arietis), and Muscida (Omicron Ursae Majoris).
This number is expected to grow, as the WGSN continues to revive ancient stellar names and add new ones that are suggested by the international astronomical community.
Image of the "Face of Mars" by the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, with the Viking 1 image inset (bottom right). Credit: NASA/JPL
The surface of Mars has been the subject of fascination for centuries. Even sinceGiovanni Schiaparelli first announced that he had observed the “Martian Canals” in 1877, the Red Planet has been a source of endless speculation. Even today, crystal-clear images sent directly from the surface by rovers are still the subject of pareidolia – where people see familiar patterns in random features.
Nowhere has this tendency of seeing what we want to see on the surface of Mars been made more clean than with the Cydonia region. Located in the northern hemisphere, this region of Mars is known for its many interesting land forms. The most famous of these is the “Face of Mars”, which has attracted immense scientific and popular curiosity over the past few decades.
Location:
The area called Cydonia is in the northern hemisphere of Mars, in between the heavily cratered regions of the south (the Arabia Terra highlands) and the smooth plains to the north (Acidalia Planitia). The area includes the regions of flat-topped mesa-like featured (“Cydonia Mensae”), a region of small hills or knobs, (“Cydonia Colles”) and a complex of intersecting valleys (“Cydonia Labyrinthus”).
Image of the Cydonia region under infrared light taken by the Viking 1 orbiter. Credit: NASA/JPL
Because of its geographical location, it is possible that Cydonia was once a coastal plain region, billions of years ago when the northern hemisphere of Mars is believed to have been covered with water. The name – like many featured on Mars – is drawn from classical antiquity; in this case, from the historic city-state of Kydonia, which was located on the island of Crete.
Exploration:
Cydonia was first photographed by the Viking 1 and 2 orbiters. Between the two, eighteen images were taken of the region, all of which were of limited resolution. Of these, only five were considered suitable for studying surface features. Because of their limited quality, a particular mesa resembled a humanoid face (see below).
It would be another 20 years before other spacecraft photographed the region as they conducted observations of Mars. These included NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor, which orbited Mars from 1997 to 2006; the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO), which reached the planet in 2006 and is still in operation; and the ESA’s Mars Express probe – which has been in orbit since 2003.
Each of these missions provided images of Cydonia which were much better in terms of resolution and debunked the existence of an artificial “Face of Mars” feature. After analyzing images taken by the Mars Global Surveyor, NASA declared that “a detailed analysis of multiple images of this feature reveals a natural looking Martian hill whose illusory face-like appearance depends on the viewing angle and angle of illumination”.
A section of the Cydonia region, taken by the Viking 1 orbiter and released on July 25, 1976. Credit: NASA/JPL
Notable Features:
As already noted, Cydonia’s best known feature is the famous “Face of Mars“. This 2 km long mesa, which was first photographed by the Viking 1 orbiter on July 25th, 1976, initially was thought to resemble a human face. At the time, the NASA science team dismissed this as a “trick of light and shadow”. But a second image, acquired 35 orbits later at a different angle, confirmed the existence of the “Face of Mars”.
Vincent DiPietro and Gregory Molenaar, two computer engineers at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, independently discovered this image while searching through the NASA archives. From 1982 onward, these images would lead widespread speculation about what could have caused it, and fueled interest in the possible existence of a civilization on Mars.
In addition, DiPeitro and Molenaar noticed several mountains near the “Face” that had angular peaks, which they referred to as “pyramids“. One in particular, a 500 meter-tall mountain located to the south-west, was especially geometric in shape. Richard Hoagland, a famous conspiracy theorist, dubbed it the “D&M Pyramid” (in honor of DiPietro and Molenaar), a name which stuck.
Last, but not least, there is also the area to the north of the “Face” that was dubbed “the city”, because of its supposed resemblance to a series of monuments. These consisted predominately of more ‘pyramids’ that are arranged in a circular pattern around a series of smaller rocky features, known as the “City Square” (see below).
Mosaic created from images taken by the Viking orbiter, showing landforms in Cydonia with popular, informal names. Credit: NASA/JPL
Later images provided by the Mars Global Surveyor, the MRO and the Mars Express all resolved these features with far greater accuracy, showing them to be natural features with no evidence of construction of manipulation. In all cases, psychologists indicated that the desire to see familiar shapes and patterns was an example of pareidolia.
As for the Cydonia region, future missions to the planet may take an interest in exploring it further. However, this will most likely to get a better understanding of the regions past and see it was indeed a coastal region at one time. There will be NO attempts to search for signs of ziggurats, pyramids, ancient sarcophagi, or any other indications of a lost civilization.
Artist's impression of the ExoMars Schiaparelli lander passing into Mars' atmosphere. Credit: ESA
The European Space Agency (ESA) and Roscomos (the Russian federal space agency) had high hopes for the Schiaparelli lander, which crashed on the surface of Mars on October 19th. As part of the ExoMars program, its purpose was to test the technologies that will be used to deploy a rover to the Red Planet in 2020.
However, investigators are making progress towards determining what went wrong during the lander’s descent. Based on their most recent findings, they concluded that an anomaly took place with an on-board instrument that led to the lander detaching from its parachute and backshell prematurely. This ultimately caused it to land hard and be destroyed.
According to investigators, the data retrieved from the lander indicates that for the most part, Schiaparelli was functioning normally before it crashed. This included the parachute deploying once it had reached an altitude of 12 km and achieved a speed of 1730 km/h. When it reached an altitude of 7.8 km, the lander’s heatshield was released, and it radar altimeter provided accurate data to the lander’s on-board guidance, navigation and control system.
Schiaparelli lander descent sequence. According to their investigation, the ESA has determined that an error led the parachute and backshell to be jettisoned prematurely, causing the lander to crash. Credit: ESA/ATG medialab
All of this happened according to plan and did not contribute to the fatal crash. However, an anomaly then took place with the Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU), which is there to measure the rotation rates of the vehicle. Apparently, the IMU experienced saturation shortly after the parachute was deployed, causing it to persist for one second longer than required.
This error was then fed to the navigation system, which caused it to generate an estimate altitude that was below Mars’ actual ground level. In essence, the lander thought it was closer to the ground than it actually was. As such, the the parachute and backshell of the Entry and Descent Module (EDM) were jettisoned and the braking thrusters fired prematurely – at an altitude of 3.7 km instead of 1.2 km, as planned.
This briefest of errors caused the lander to free-fall for one second longer than it was supposed to, causing it to land hard and be destroyed. The investigators have confirmed this assessment using multiple computer simulations, all of which indicate that the IMU error was responsible. However, this is still a tentative conclusion that awaits final confirmation from the agency.
Artist’s impression of the Schiaparelli lander on Mars. Credit: ESA/ATG medialab
As David Parker, the ESA’s Director of Human Spaceflight and Robotic Exploration, said on on Wednesday, Nov. 23rd in a ESA press release:
“This is still a very preliminary conclusion of our technical investigations. The full picture will be provided in early 2017 by the future report of an external independent inquiry board, which is now being set up, as requested by ESA’s Director General, under the chairmanship of ESA’s Inspector General. But we will have learned much from Schiaparelli that will directly contribute to the second ExoMars mission being developed with our international partners for launch in 2020.”
In other words, this accident has not deterred the ESA and Roscosmos from pursuing the next stage in the ExoMars program – which is the deployment of the ExoMars rover in 2020. When it reaches Mars in 2021, the rover will be capable of navigating autonomously across the surface, using a on-board laboratory suite to search for signs of biological life, both past and present.
In the meantime, data retrieved from Schiaparelli’s other instruments is still being analyzed, as well as information from orbiters that observed the lander’s descent. It is hoped that this will shed further light on the accident, as well as salvage something from the mission. The Trace Gas Orbiter is also starting its first series of observations since it made its arrival in orbit on Oct. 19th, and will reach its operational orbit towards the end of 2017.
Illustration of Jupiter and the Galilean satellites. Credit: NASA
Welcome back to our series on Settling the Solar System! Today, we take a look at the largest of the Jovian Moons – Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto!
In 1610, Galileo Galilei became the first astronomer to discover the large moons of Jupiter, using a telescope of his own design. As time passed, these moons – Io, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto – would collectively come to be referred to as the Galilean Moons, in honor of their discoverer. And with the birth of space exploration, what we’ve come to know about these satellites has fascinated and inspired us.
For example, ever since the Pioneer and Voyager probes passed through the system decades ago, scientists have suspected that moons like Europa might be our best bet for finding life in our Solar System beyond Earth. And because of the presence of water ice, interior oceans, minerals, and organic molecules, it has been speculated that humanity might establish colonies on one or more of these worlds someday.
Examples in Fiction:
The concept of a colonized Jovian system is featured in many science fiction publications. For instance, Robert A. Heinlein’s novel Farmer in the Sky (1953) centers on a teenage boy and his family moving to Ganymede. The moon is in the process of being terraformed in the story, and farmers are being recruited to help turn it into an agricultural colony.
Cover of Arthur C. Clarke’s 1982 novel, 2010: Odyssey Two. Credit: Public Domain
In the course of the story, it is mentioned that there are also efforts to introduce an atmosphere on Callisto. Many of his Heinlein’s other novels include passing mentions of a colony on Ganymede, including The Rolling Stones (1952), Double Star (1956), I Will Fear No Evil (1970), and the posthumously-written Variable Star (2006).
In 1954, Poul Anderson published a novella titled The Snows of Ganymede(1954). In this story, a party of terraformers visits a settlement on Ganymede called X, which was established two centuries earlier by a group of American religious fanatics.
In Arthur C. Clarke’s Space Odyssey series, the moon of Europa plays a central role. In 2010: Odyssey Two(1982) an ancient race of advanced aliens are turning the moon into a habitable body by converting Jupiter into a second sun. The warmth of this dwarf star (Lucifer) causes the surface ice on Europa to melt, and the life forms that are evolving underneath are able to emerge.
In 2061: Odyssey Three, Clarke also mentions how Lucifer’s warmth has caused Ganymede’s surface to partially sublimate, creating a large equatorial lake. Isaac Asimov also used the moons of Jupiter in his stories. In the short stories “Not Final!” (1941) and “Victory ‘Unintentional'” (1942), a conflict arises between humans living on Ganymede and the inhabitants of Jupiter.
In Philip K. Dick’s short-story The Mold of Yancy (1955), Callisto is home to a colony where the people conform to the dictates of Yancy, a public commentator who speaks to them via public broadcasts. In Bruce Sterling’s Schismatrix (1985), Europa is inhabited by a faction of genetically-engineered posthumans that are vying for control of the Solar System.
Alastair Reynolds’s short story “A Spy in Europa” depicts colonies built on the underside of Europa’s icy surface. Meanwhile, a race of genetically-altered humans (called the “Denizens”) are created to live in the subsurface ocean, close to the core-mantle boundary where hydrothermal vents keep the water warm and the native life forms live.
Kim Stanley Robinson’s novels Galileo’s Dream (2009) and 2312 (2012) feature colonies on Io, where settlements are adapted to deal with the volcanically active, hostile surface. The former novel is partly set on Callisto, where a massive city called Valhalla is built around the concentric rings of the moon’s giant crater (also mentioned in 2312).
In Robinson’s The Memory of Whiteness (1985), the protagonists visit Europa, which hosts large human colonies who live around pools of melted ice. And in his novel Blue Mars (1996), Robinson makes a passing description of a flourishing colony on Callisto.
A “family portrait” of the four Galilean satellites (Io Europa, Ganymede and Callisto) around Jupiter, taken by the New Horizons spacecraft and released in 2007. Credit: NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Southwest Research Institute
Proposed Methods:
Since the Voyager probes passed through the Jovian system, several proposals have been made for crewed missions to Jupiter’s moons and even the creation of settlements. For instance, in 1994, the private spaceflight venture known as the Artemis Project was established with the intent of colonizing the Moon in the 21st century.
However, in 1997, they also drafted plans to colonize Europa, which called for igloos to be established on the surface. These would serve as based for scientists who then drill down into the Europan ice crust and explore the sub-surface ocean. This plan also discussed the possible use of “air pockets” in the ice sheet for long-term human habitation.
In 2003, NASA produced a study called Revolutionary Concepts for Human Outer Planet Exploration (HOPE) which addressed future exploration of the Solar System. Because of its distance from Jupiter, and therefore low exposure to radiation, the target destination in this study was the moon Callisto.
The plan called for operations to begin in 2045. These would begin with the creation of a base on Callisto, where science teams would be able to teleoperate a robotic submarine that would be used to explore Europa’s internal ocean. These science teams would also excavate surface samples near their landing site on Callisto.
Last, but not least, the expedition to Callisto would establish a reusable surface habitat where water ice could be harvested and converted into rocket fuel. This base could therefore serve as a resupply base for all future exploitation missions in the Jovian system.
Also in 2003, NASA reported that a manned mission to Callisto might be possible in the 2040s. According to a joint-study released by the Glenn Research Center and the Ohio Aerospace Institute, this mission would rely on a ship equipped with Nuclear-Electric Propulsion (NEP) and artificial gravity, which would transport a crew on a 5-year mission to Callisto to establish a base.
In his book Entering Space: Creating a Spacefaring Civilization (1999), Robert Zubrin advocated mining the atmospheres of the outer planets – including Jupiter – to obtain Helium-3 fuel. A base on one or more of the Galilean moons would be necessary for this. NASA has also speculated on this, citing how it could yield limitless supplies of fuel for fusion reactors here on Earth and anywhere else in the Solar System where colonies exist.
In October of 2012, Elon Musk unveiled his concept for an Mars Colonial Transporter (MCT), which was central to his long-term goal of colonizing Mars. At the time, Musk stated that the first unmanned flight of the Mars transport spacecraft would take place in 2022, followed by the first manned MCT mission departing in 2024.
In September 2016, during the 2016 International Astronautical Congress, Musk revealed further details of his plan, which included the design for an Interplanetary Transport System (ITS) and estimated costs. This system, which was originally intended to transport settlers to Mars, had evolved in its role to transport human beings to more distant locations in the Solar System – including Europa and other Jovian moons.
Potential Benefits:
Establishing colonies on the Galilean moons has many potential benefits for humanity. For one, the Jovian system is incredibly rich in terms of volatiles – which include water, carbon dioxide, and ammonia ices – as well as organic molecules. In addition, it is believed that Jupiter’s moons also contain massive amounts of liquid water.
For example, volume estimates placed on Europa’s interior ocean suggest that it may contain as much as 3 × 1018 m3 – three quadrillion cubic kilometers, or 719.7 trillion cubic miles – of water. This is slightly more than twice the combined volume of all of Earth’s oceans. In addition, colonies on the moons of Jupiter could enable missions to Jupiter itself, where hydrogen and helium-3 could be harvested as nuclear fuel.
Illustration of Europa (foreground), Jupiter (right), and Io (middle) showing water plumes that reach the surface. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech
Colonies established on Europa and Ganymede would also allow for multiple exploration missions to be mounted to the interior oceans that these moons are believed to have. Given that these oceans are also thought to be some of the most likely locations for extra-terrestrial life in our Solar System, the ability to examine them up close would be a boon for scientific research.
Colonies on the moons of Io, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto would also facilitate missions farther out into the Solar System. These colonies could serve as stopover points and resupply bases for missions heading to and from the Cronian system (Saturn’s system of moons) where additional resources could be harvested.
In short, colonies in the Jovian system would provide humanity with access to abundant resources and immense research opportunities. The chance to grow as a species, and become a post-scarcity one at that, are there; assuming that all the challenges can be overcome.
Challenges:
And of course, these challenges are great in size and many in number. They include, but are not limited to, radiation, the long-term effects of lower gravity, transportation issues, lack of infrastructure, and of course, the sheer cost involved. Considering the hazard radiation poses to exploration, it is appropriate to deal with this aspect first.
The magnetic field of Jupiter and co-rotation enforcing currents. Credit: Wikipedia Commons
Io and Europa, being the closest Galileans to Jupiter, receive the most radiation of any of these moons. This is made worse by the fact that neither have a protective magnetic field and very tenuous atmospheres. As such, Io’s surface receives an average of about 3,600 rems per day, while Europa receives about 540 per day.
For comparison, people here on Earth are exposed to less than 1 rem a day (0.62 for those living in developed nations). Exposure to 500 rems a day is likely to be fatal, and exposure to roughly 75 in a period of a few days is enough to cause severe health problems and radiation poisoning.
Ganymede is the only Galilean moon (and only non-gas giant body other than Earth) to have a magnetosphere. However, it is still overpowered by Jupiter’s powerful magnetic field. On average, the moon receives about 8 rads of radiation per day, which is the equivalent of what the surface of Mars is exposed to in an average year.
Only Callisto is far enough from Jupiter that it is not dominated by its magnetic environment. Here, radiation levels only reach about 0.01 rems per day, just a fraction of what we are exposed to here on Earth. However, its distance from Jupiter means that it experiences its fair share of problems as well (not the least of which is a lack of tidal heating in its interior).
Artist’s impression of a base on Callisto. Credit: NASA
Another major issue is the long-term effects the lower gravity on these moons would have on human health. On the Galilean moons, the surface gravity ranges from 0.126 g (for Callisto ) to 0.183 g (for Io). This is comparable to the Moon (0.1654 g), but substantially less than Mars (0.376 g). And while the effects of low-g are not well-understood, it is known that the long-term effect of microgravity include loss of bone density and muscle degeneration.
Compared to other potential locations for colonization, the Jovian system is also very far from Earth. As such, transporting crews and all the heavy equipment necessary to build a colony would be very time-consuming, as would missions where resources were being transported to and from the Jovian moons.
To give you a sense of how long it would take, let’s consider some actual missions to Jupiter. The first spacecraft to travel from Earth to Jupiter was NASA’s Pioneer 10 probe, which launched on March 3rd, 1972, and reached the Jupiter system on December 3, 1973 – 640 days (1.75 or years) of flight time.
Pioneer 11 made the trip in 606 days, but like its predecessor, it was simply passing through the system on its way to the Outer planets. Similarly, the Voyager 1 and 2 probes, which were also passing through the system, took 546 days and 688 days, respectively. For direct missions, like the Galileo probe and the recent Juno mission, the travel time was even longer.
Artist’s concept of a Bimodal Nuclear Thermal Rocket in Low Earth Orbit. Credit: NASA
In the case of Galileo, the probe left Earth on October 18th, 1989, and arrived at Jupiter on December 7th, 1995. In other words, it took 6 years, 1 month, and 19 days to make it to Jupiter from Earth without flying by. Juno, on the other hand, launched from Earth on Aug. 5th, 2011, and achieved orbit around Jupiter on July 5th, 2016 – 1796 days, or just under 5 years.
And, it should be noted, these were uncrewed missions, which involved only a robotic probe and not a vessel large enough to accommodate large crews, supplies and heavy equipment. As a result, colony ships would have to be much larger and heavier, and would require advanced propulsion systems – like nuclear-thermal/nuclear-electric engines – to ensure they made the trip in a reasonable amount of time.
Missions to and from the Jovian moons would also require bases between Earth and Jupiter in order to provide refueling and resupplying, and cut down on the costs of individual missions. This would mean that permanent outposts would need to be established on the Moon, Mars, and most likely in the Asteroid Belt before any missions to Jupiter’s moons were considered feasible or cost-effective.
These last two challenges raise the issue of cost. Between building ships that have the ability to make the trip to Jupiter in a fair amount of time, established the bases needed to support them, and the cost of establishing the colonies themselves, the colonization of the Jovian moons would be incredibly expensive! Combined with the hazards of doing so, one has to wonder if its even worth it.
SpaceX’s newly revealed Interplanetary Transit System will make travel to Mars, and other destinations in our Solar System, possible. Credit: SpaceX
On the other hand, in the context of space exploration and colonization, the idea of establishing permanent human outposts on Jupiter’s moons makes sense. All of the challenges can be addressed, provided the proper precautions are taken and the right kind of resources are committed. And while it will have to wait until after similar colonies/bases are established on the Moon and Mars, it is not a bad idea as far as “next steps” go.
With colonies on any of the Galilean moons, humanity will have a foothold in the outer Solar System, a stopover point for future missions to Saturn and beyond, and access to abundant resources. Again, it all comes down to how much we are willing to spend.
Perhaps the most important question we can possible ask is, “are we alone in the Universe?”.
And so far, the answer has been, “I don’t know”. I mean, it’s a huge Universe, with hundreds of billions of stars in the Milky Way, and now we learn there are trillions of galaxies in the Universe.
Is there life closer to home? What about in the Solar System? There are a few existing places we could look for life close to home. Really any place in the Solar System where there’s liquid water. Wherever we find water on Earth, we find life, so it make sense to search for places with liquid water in the Solar System.
I know, I know, life could take all kinds of wonderful forms. Enlightened beings of pure energy, living among us right now. Or maybe space whales on Titan that swim through lakes of ammonia. Beep boop silicon robot lifeforms that calculate the wasted potential of our lives.
Sure, we could search for those things, and we will. Later. We haven’t even got this basic problem done yet. Earth water life? Check! Other water life? No idea.
It turns out, water’s everywhere in the Solar System. In comets and asteroids, on the icy moons of Jupiter and Saturn, especially Europa or Enceladus. Or you could look for life on Mars.
Sloping buttes and layered outcrops within the “Murray formation” layer of lower Mount Sharp. Credit: NASA
Mars is similar to Earth in many ways, however, it’s smaller, has less gravity, a thinner atmosphere. And unfortunately, it’s bone dry. There are vast polar caps of water ice, but they’re frozen solid. There appears to be briny liquid water underneath the surface, and it occasionally spurts out onto the surface. Because it’s close and relatively easy to explore, it’s been the place scientists have gone looking for past or current life.
Researchers tried to answer the question with NASA’s twin Viking Landers, which touched down in 1976. The landers were both equipped with three biology experiments. The researchers weren’t kidding around, they were going to nail this question: is there life on Mars?
In the first experiment, they took soil samples from Mars, mixed in a liquid solution with organic and inorganic compounds, and then measured what chemicals were released. In a second experiment, they put Earth organic compounds into Martian soil, and saw carbon dioxide released. In the third experiment, they heated Martian soil and saw organic material come out of the soil.
The landing site of Viking 1 on Mars in 1977, with trenches dug in the soil for the biology experiments. Credit: NASA/JPL
Three experiments, and stuff happened in all three. Stuff! Pretty exciting, right? Unfortunately, there were equally plausible non-biological explanations for each of the results. The astrobiology community wasn’t convinced, and they still fight in brutal cage matches to this day. It was ambitious, but inconclusive. The worst kind of conclusive.
Researchers found more inconclusive evidence in 1994. Ugh, there’s that word again. They were studying a meteorite that fell in Antarctica, but came from Mars, based on gas samples taken from inside the rock.
They thought they found evidence of fossilized bacterial life inside the meteorite. But again, there were too many explanations for how the life could have gotten in there from here on Earth. Life found a way… to burrow into a rock from Mars.
NASA learned a powerful lesson from this experience. If they were going to prove life on Mars, they had to go about it carefully and conclusively, building up evidence that had no controversy.
Artist Concept, Mars Exploration Rovers. NASA/JPL-Caltech
The Spirit and Opportunity Rovers were an example of building up this case cautiously. They were sent to Mars in 2004 to find evidence of water. Not water today, but water in the ancient past. Old water Over the course of several years of exploration, both rovers turned up multiple lines of evidence there was water on the surface of Mars in the ancient past.
They found concretions, tiny pebbles containing iron-rich hematite that forms on Earth in water. They found the mineral gypsum; again, something that’s deposited by water on Earth.
A bright mineral vein informally named Homestake. The vein is about the width of a thumb and about 18 inches (45 centimeters) long. Opportunity examined it in November 2011 (Sol 2763) and found it to be rich in calcium and sulfur, possibly the calcium-sulfate mineral gypsum. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech
NASA’s Curiosity Rover took this analysis to the next level, arriving in 2012 and searching for evidence that water was on Mars for vast periods of time; long enough for Martian life to evolve.
Once again, Curiosity found multiple lines of evidence that water acted on the surface of Mars. It found an ancient streambed near its landing site, and drilled into rock that showed the region was habitable for long periods of time.
In 2014, NASA turned the focus of its rovers from looking for evidence of water to searching for past evidence of life.
Curiosity found one of the most interesting targets: a strange strange rock formations while it was passing through an ancient riverbed on Mars. While it was examining the Gillespie Lake outcrop in Yellowknife Bay, it photographed sedimentary rock that looks very similar to deposits we see here on Earth. They’re caused by the fossilized mats of bacteria colonies that lived billions of years ago.
A bright and interestingly shaped tiny pebble shows up among the soil on a rock, called “Gillespie Lake,” which was imaged by Curiosity’s Mars Hand Lens Imager on Dec. 19, 2012, the 132nd sol, or Martian day of Curiosity’s mission on Mars. Credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech / MSSS.
Not life today, but life when Mars was warmer and wetter. Still, fossilized life on Mars is better than no life at all. But there might still be life on Mars, right now, today. The best evidence is not on its surface, but in its atmosphere. Several spacecraft have detected trace amounts of methane in the Martian atmosphere.
Methane is a chemical that breaks down quickly in sunlight. If you farted on Mars, the methane from your farts would dissipate in a few hundred years. If spacecraft have detected this methane in the atmosphere, that means there’s some source replenishing those sneaky squeakers. It could be volcanic activity, but it might also be life. There could be microbes hanging on, in the last few places with liquid water, producing methane as a byproduct.
The European ExoMars orbiter just arrived at Mars, and its main job is sniff the Martian atmosphere and get to the bottom of this question.
Are there trace elements mixed in with the methane that means its volcanic in origin? Or did life create it? And if there’s life, where is it located? ExoMars should help us target a location for future study.
The European/Russian ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO) will sniff the Martian atmosphere for signs of methane which could originate for either biological or geological mechanisms. Credit: ESA
NASA is following up Curiosity with a twin rover designed to search for life. The Mars 2020 Rover will be a mobile astrobiology laboratory, capable of scooping up material from the surface of Mars and digesting it, scientifically speaking. It’ll search for the chemicals and structures produced by past life on Mars. It’ll also collect samples for a future sample return mission.
Even if we do discover if there’s life on Mars, it’s entirely possible that we and Martian life are actually related by a common ancestor, that split off billions of years ago. In fact, some astrobiologists think that Mars is a better place for life to have gotten started.
Not the dry husk of a Red Planet that we know today, but a much wetter, warmer version that we now know existed billions of years ago. When the surface of Mars was warm enough for liquid water to form oceans, lakes and rivers. And we now know it was like this for millions of years.
A conception of an ancient Mars, flush with oceans, clouds and life. Credit: Kevin Gill.
While Earth was still reeling from an early impact by the massive planet that crashed into it, forming the Moon, life on Mars could have gotten started early.
But how could we actually be related? The idea of Panspermia says that life could travel naturally from world to world in the Solar System, purely through the asteroid strikes that were regularly pounding everything in the early days.
Imagine an asteroid smashing into a world like Mars. In the lower gravity of Mars, debris from the impact could be launched into an escape trajectory, free to travel through the Solar System.
We know that bacteria can survive almost indefinitely, freeze dried, and protected from radiation within chunks of space rock. So it’s possible they could make the journey from Mars to Earth, crossing the orbit of our planet.
Even more amazingly, the meteorites that enter the Earth’s atmosphere would protect some of the bacterial inhabitants inside. As the Earth’s atmosphere is thick enough to slow down the descent of the space rocks, the tiny bacterialnauts could survive the entire journey from Mars, through space, to Earth.
Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech
If we do find life on Mars, how will we know it’s actually related to us? If Martian life has the similar DNA structure to Earth life, it’s probably related. In fact, we could probably trace the life back to determine the common ancestor, and even figure out when the tiny lifeforms make the journey.
If we do find life on Mars, which is related to us, that just means that life got around the Solar System. It doesn’t help us answer the bigger question about whether there’s life in the larger Universe. In fact, until we actually get a probe out to nearby stars, or receive signals from them, we might never know.
An even more amazing possibility is that it’s not related. That life on Mars arose completely independently. One clue that scientists will be looking for is the way the Martian life’s instructions are encoded. Here on Earth, all life follows “left-handed chirality” for the amino acid building blocks that make up DNA and RNA. But if right-handed amino acids are being used by Martian life, that would mean a completely independent origin of life.
Of course, if the life doesn’t use amino acids or DNA at all, then all bets are off. It’ll be truly alien, using a chemistry that we don’t understand at all.
There are many who believe that Mars isn’t the best place in the Solar System to search for life, that there are other places, like Europa or Enceladus, where there’s a vast amount of liquid water to be explored.
But Mars is close, it’s got a surface you can land on. We know there’s liquid water beneath the surface, and there was water there for a long time in the past. We’ve got the rovers, orbiters and landers on the planet and in the works to get to the bottom of this question. It’s an exciting time to be part of this search.
Image of the Messier 27 planetary nebula, taken by NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/J. Hora (Harvard-Smithsonian CfA)
Welcome back to Messier Monday! In our ongoing tribute to the great Tammy Plotner, we take a look at the famous and easily-spotted Dumbbell Nebula. Enjoy!
Back in the 18th century, famed French astronomer Charles Messier noted the presence of several “nebulous objects” in the night sky. Having originally mistaken them for comets, he began compiling a list of them so that others would not make the same mistake he did. In time, this list would come to include 100 of the most fabulous objects in the night sky.
Known today as the Messier Catalog, this work has come to be viewed as one of the most important milestones in the study of Deep Space Objects. One of these is the famed Dumbbell Nebula – also known as Messier 27, the Apple Core Nebula, and NGC 6853. Because it of its brightness, it is easily viewed with binoculars and amateur telescopes, and was the first planetary Nebula to be discovered by Charles Messier.
Description:
This bright planetary nebula is located in the direction of the Vulpecula constellation, at a distance of about 1,360 light years from Earth. Located within the equatorial plane, this nebula is essentially a dying star that has been ejecting a shell of hot gas into space for roughly 48,000 years.
Picture of M27 processed and combined using IRAF and MaxIm DL. Credit: Wikipedia Commons/Mohamad Abbas
The star responsible is an extremely hot blueish subdwarf star, which emits primarily highly energetic radiation in the non-visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum. This energy is absorbed by exciting the nebula’s gas, and then re-emitted by the nebula. Messier 27 particular green glow (hence the nickname “Apple Core Nebula”) is due to the presence of doubly-ionized oxygen in its center, which emits green light at 5007 Angstroms.
For many years I quested to understand the distant and mysterious M27, but no one could answer my questions. I researched it, and learned that it was made up of doubly ionized oxygen. I had hoped that perhaps there was a spectral reason to what I viewed year after year – but still no answer.
Like all amateurs, I became the victim of “aperture fever” and I continued to study M27 with a 12″ telescope, never realizing the answer was right there – I just hadn’t powered up enough. Several years later while studying at the Observatory, I was viewing through a friend’s identical 12″ telescope and, as chance would have it, he was using about twice the magnification that I normally used on the “Dumbbell.”
Imagine my total astonishment as I realized for the very first time that the faint central star had an even fainter companion that made it seem to wink! At smaller apertures or low power, this was not revealed. Still, the eye could “see” a movement within the nebula – the central, radiating star and its companion.
Image from a ground-based telescope at Westview Observatory in Cridersville, OH. Credit: Wikipedia Commons/Charlemagne920
“As the gas at the inner edge begins to ionize, the pressure throughout the nebula is equalized by a shock which moves outward through the neutral gas. Later, when about 1/10 of the nebular mass is ionized, a second shock is released from the ionized front, and this shock moves through the neutral shell reaching the outer edge. The density of the HI gas just behind the shock is quite large and the outward gas velocity increases within until it reaches a maximum of 40-80 km per second just behind the shock front. The projected appearance of the nebula during this stage has a double ring structure similar to many observed planetaries.”
But, movement or no movement, Messier 27 is known as one of the top “polluters” of the interstellar medium. As Joseph L. Hora ( et al.) of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics said in his 2008 study “Planetary Nebulae: Exposing the Top Polluters of the ISM“:
“The high mass loss rates of stars in their asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stage of evolution is one of the most important pathways for mass return from stars to the ISM. In the planetary nebulae (PNe) phase, the ejected material is illuminated and can be altered by the UV radiation from the central star. PNe therefore play a significant role in the ISM recycling process and in changing the environment around them…
“A key link in the recycling of material to the Interstellar Medium (ISM) is the phase of stellar evolution from Asymptotic Giant Branch (AGB) to white dwarf star. When stars are on the AGB, they begin to lose mass at a prodigious rate. The stars on the AGB are relatively cool, and their atmospheres are a fertile environment for the formation of dust and molecules. The material can include molecular hydrogen (H2), silicates, and carbon-rich dust. The star is fouling its immediate neighborhood with these noxious emissions. The star is burning clean hydrogen fuel, but unlike a “green” hydrogen vehicle that outputs nothing except water, the star produces ejecta of various types, some of which have properties similar to that of soot from a gas-burning automobile. A significant fraction of the material returned to the ISM goes through the AGB – PNe pathway, making these stars one of the major sources of pollution of the ISM.
“However, these stars are not done with their stellar ejecta yet. Before the slow, massive AGB wind can escape, the star begins a rapid evolution where it contracts and its surface temperature increases. The star starts ejecting a less massive but high velocity wind that crashes into the existing circumstellar material, which can create a shock and a higher density shell. As the stellar temperature increases, the UV flux increases and it ionizes the gas surrounding the central star, and can excite emission from molecules, heat the dust, and even begin to break apart the molecules and dust grains. The objects are then visible as planetary nebulae, exposing their long history of spewing material into the ISM, and further processing the ejecta. There are even reports that the central stars of some PNe may be engaging in nucleosynthesis for purposes of self-enrichment, which can be traced by monitoring the elemental abundances in the nebulae. Clearly, we must assess and understand the processes going on in these objects in order to understand their impact on the ISM, and their influence on future generations of stars.”
Messier 27 and the Summer Triangle. Credit: Wikisky
History of Observation:
So, chances are on July 12th, 1764, when Charles Messier discovered this new and fascinating class of objects, he didn’t really have a clue as to how important his observation would be. From his notes of that night, he reports:
“I have worked on the research of the nebulae, and I have discovered one in the constellation Vulpecula, between the two forepaws, and very near the star of fifth magnitude, the fourteenth of that constellation, according to the catalog of Flamsteed: One sees it well in an ordinary refractor of three feet and a half. I have examined it with a Gregorian telescope which magnified 104 times: it appears in an oval shape; it doesn’t contain any star; its diameter is about 4 minutes of arc. I have compared that nebula with the neighboring star which I have mentioned above [14 Vul]; its right ascension has been concluded at 297d 21′ 41″, and its declination 22d 4′ 0″ north.”
Of course, Sir William Herschel’s own curiosity would get the better of him and although he would never publish his own findings on an object previously cataloged by Messier, he did keep his own private notes. Here is an excerpt from just one of his many observations:
“1782, Sept. 30. My sister discovered this nebula this evening in sweeping for comets; on comparing its place with Messier’s nebulae we find it is his 27. It is very curious with a compound piece; the shape of it though oval as M. [Messier] calls it, is rather divided in two; it is situated among a number of small [faint] stars, but with this compound piece no star is visible in it. I can only make it bear 278. It vanishes with higher powers on account of its feeble light. With 278 the division between the two patches is stronger, because the intermediate faint light vanishes more.”
So where did Messier 27 get its famous moniker? From Sir John Herschel, who wrote: “A most extraordinary object; very bright; an unresolved nebula, shaped something like an hour-glass, filled into an oval outline with a much less dense nebulosity. The central mass may be compared to a vertebra or a dumb-bell. The southern head is denser than the northern. One or two stars seen in it.”
It would be several years, and several more historical astronomers, before the true nature of Messier 27 would even be hinted at. At one level, they understood it to be a nebula – but it wasn’t until 1864 when William Huggins came along and began to decode the mystery:
“It is obvious that the nebulae 37 H IV (NGC 3242), Struve 6 (NGC 6572), 73 H IV (NGC 6826), 1 H IV (NGC 7009), 57 M, 18 H. IV (NGC 7662) and 27 M. can no longer be regarded as aggregations of suns after the order to which our own sun and the fixed stars belong. We have with these objects to do no longer with a special modification only of our own type of suns, but find ourselves in the presence of objects possessing a distinct and peculiar plan of structure. In place of an incandescent solid or liquid body transmitting light of all refrangibilities through an atmosphere which intercepts by absorption a certain number of them, such as our sun appears to be, we must probably regard these objects, or at least their photo-surfaces, as enormous masses of luminous gas or vapour. For it is alone from matter in the gaseous state that light consisting of certain definite refrangibilities only, as is the case with the light of these nebulae, is known to be emitted.”
Whether or not you enjoy M27 as one of the most superb planetary nebula in the night sky (or as a science object) you will 100% agree with the words of of Burnham: “The observer who spends a few moments in quiet contemplation of this nebula will be made aware of direct contact with cosmic things; even the radiation reaching us from the celestial depths is of a type unknown on Earth…”
Locating Messier 27:
When you first begin, Messier 27 will seem like such an elusive target – but with a few simple sky “tricks”, it won’t be long until you’ll be finding this spectacular planetary nebula under just about any sky conditions. The hardest part is simply sorting out all the stars in the area to know the right ones to aim at!
The way I found easiest to teach others was to start BIG. The cruciform patterns of the Cygnus and Aquila constellations are easy to recognize and can be seen from even urban locations. Once you’ve identified these two constellations, you’re going smaller by locating Lyra and the tiny kite-shape of Delphinus.
Now you’ve circled the area and the hunt for Vulpecula the Fox begins! What’s that you say? You can’t distinguish Vulpecula’s primary stars from the rest of the field? You’re right. They don’t stand out like they should, and being tempted to simply aim halfway between Albeireo (Beta Cygni) and Alpha Delphini is too much of a span to be accurate. So what are we going to do? Here’s where some patience comes into play.
If you give yourself time, you’ll begin to notice the stars of Sagitta are ever so slightly brighter than the rest of the field stars around it, and it won’t be long until you pick out that arrow pattern. In your mind, measure the distance between Delta and Gamma (the 8 and Y shape on a starfinder map) and then just aim your binoculars or finderscope exactly that same distance due north of Gamma.
The location of M27 in the constellation Vulpecula. Credit: IAU/Sky & Telescope magazine (Roger Sinnott & Rick Fienberg)
You’ll find M27 every time! In average binoculars it will appear as a fuzzy, out of focus large star in a stellar field. In the finderscope, it may not appear at all… But in a telescope? Be prepared to be blown away! And here are the quick facts on the Dumbbell Nebula to help get you started:
Object Name: Messier 27 Alternative Designations: M27, NGC 6853, The Dumbbell Nebula Object Type: Planetary Nebula Constellation: Vulpecula Right Ascension: 19 : 59.6 (h:m) Declination: +22 : 43 (deg:m) Distance: 1.25 (kly) Visual Brightness: 7.4 (mag) Apparent Dimension: 8.0×5.7 (arc min)
Stephen Hawking recently issued some more dire warnings for humanity, saying that we have 1000 years to find a new planet. Credit: Public Domain/photo by Alexandar Vujadinovic
It has been argued that the greatest reason our species should explore space and colonize other planets is so that a cataclysmic fate won’t be able to claim all of humanity. That is the driving force behind Elon Musk’s plan to colonize Mars. And it has certainly been the driving point behind Stephen Hawking’s belief that humanity should become an interplanetary-species.
And according to Hawking, becoming interplanetary is something of a time-sensitive issue. During a recent speech presented at the Oxford Union Society (Oxford University’s prestigious debating society) Hawking laid it out plainly for the audience. Humanity has 1000 years to locate and colonize new planets, he claimed, or we will likely go extinct.
For almost 200 years, the Oxford Union Society has been a forum for intellectual debate. In the past, it has also hosted such speakers as the Dalai Lama, Stephen Fry, Morgan Freeman, Richard Dawkins, and Buzz Aldrin. On this occasion, Hawking addressed a crowd of students and professors about space exploration and humanity’s future – two subjects he’s well versed in!
Stephen Hawking is a major proponent for colonizing other worlds, mainly to ensure humanity does not go extinct. Credit: educatinghumanity.com
As Hawking made clear, humanity faces a number of existential threats, many of which are going to become a serious problem during the 21 century century. These include, but are not limited to, the threat of Climate Change, nuclear holocaust, terrorism, and the rise of artificial intelligence. The solution, Hawking argued, is to get into space and establish colonies as soon as possible.
As he was quoted as saying by the Christian Science Monitor, this will need to take place within the next 1000 years:
“Although the chance of a disaster to planet Earth in a given year may be quite low, it adds up over time, and becomes a near certainty in the next 1,000 or 10,000 years. By that time we should have spread out into space, and to other stars, so a disaster on Earth would not mean the end of the human race.”
This was not the first time Hawking has expressed concerns about the future. In January of 2015, Hawking joined Elon Musk and many other AI experts to pen the “Research Priorities for Robust and Beneficial Artificial Intelligence” – aka. the “Open Letter on Artificial Intelligence”. In this letter, he and the other signatories raised concerns about the short-term and long-term implications of AI, and urged that steps be taken to address them.
President Barack Obama talks with Stephen Hawking in the Blue Room of the White House before a ceremony presenting him and 15 others the Presidential Medal of Freedom on August 12th, 2009. Credit: whitehouse.gov/Pete Souza
In addition, back in January of 2016, Hawking warned that humanity’s technological progress has the power to outstrip us. This occurred during his speech at the 2016 Leith Lectures, where Hawking spoke about black holes and why they are fascinating. During the Q&A period that followed, Hawking turned to the much more dour subject of whether or not humanity has a future. As he said at the time:
“We face a number of threats to our survival, from nuclear war, catastrophic global warming, and genetically engineered viruses. The number is likely to increase in the future, with the development of new technologies, and new ways things can go wrong. However, we will not establish self-sustaining colonies in space for at least the next hundred years, so we have to be very careful in this period. Most of the threats we face come from the progress we have made in science and technology. We are not going to stop making progress, or reverse it, so we have to recognize the dangers and control them. I am an optimist, and I believe we can.”
Similarly, Hawking indicated back in 2010 that humanity’s survival beyond the next century would require that we become a space-faring race. In an interview with Big Think, Hawking claimed the odds of humanity making it to the 22nd century was bad enough for a single-planet species, let alone the 31st:
“I believe that the long-term future of the human race must be in space. It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster on planet Earth in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand, or million. The human race shouldn’t have all its eggs in one basket, or on one planet. Let’s hope we can avoid dropping the basket until we have spread the load.”
Hawking has repeatedly advocated space exploration and colonization as a way of ensuring humanity’s survival. Credit: NASA/MSFC
But before anyone gets all gloomy, it should be noted that between our plans to colonize Mars, and the success of the Kepler mission, we have found hundreds of planets that could serve as potential homes for humanity. But as Hawking has stated in the past, we will need at least 100 years to develop all the necessary technologies to build colonies on even the closest of these planets (Mars).
Beyond our survival as a species, Professor Hawking also advocates space travel as a way of improving humanity’s understanding of itself. This was made evident in a direct quote that the Union live-tweeted during the speech, in which he said: “We must continue exploring space in order to improve our knowledge of humanity. We must go beyond our humble planet.”
And as he has done so often before, Hawking ended his speech on an optimistic note. According to the Independent, he wrapped up his Oxford lecture with the following words of advice:
“Remember to look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Try to make sense of what you see, wonder about what makes the universe exist. Be curious. However difficult life may seem, there is always something you can do and succeed at. It matters that you don’t just give up.”
It seems we have our work cut out for us. Extra-terrestrial and/or extra-solar colonies by 3016… or bust!
24.5 (V0 
