Does a Boomerang Work in Space?

boomerang-in-space.thumbnail.jpg

Testing a boomerang in space might look and sound trivial, but it’s an exciting physics experiment that helps scientists to understand the dynamics of flight in microgravity. And now, one aspect of the “boomerang in space” question has finally been tested and answered. Japanese astronaut Takao Doi “threw a boomerang and saw it come back” during his free time on March 18 at the International Space Station, said a spokeswoman for the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency. “I was very surprised and moved to see that it flew the same way it does on Earth,” the 53-year-old Doi was quoted as saying. This test was done inside a pressurized module of the ISS. But, one big question about boomerangs in space remains:

Will it work in the vacuum of space?

No, says boomerang expert and designer Gary Broadbent. The boomerang that was used in the experiment on board the ISS was a design of Broadbent’s called a “Roomerang,” a small, tri-blade boomerang intended for use indoors in a small area or outdoors in light winds. It travels 5 to 8 feet before returning to the thrower.

Broadbent told Universe Today that a boomerang would not work in the vacuum of space. “You need air molecules to generate the lift to make the boomerang turn,” Broadbent said.

But he also added that in the pressurized environment of the ISS, “microgravity has very little effect on the boomerang flight. The boomerang is so versatile, it can be tuned to fly in a perfect path back to the thrower, with gyroscopic precession and angular momentum over-compensating the lack of gravity.”
space boomerang.  Image courtesy of Gary Broadbent

Doi decided on boomerang tests after he received a request from Yasuhiro Togai, a world boomerang champion who helped Doi train to throw a boomerang correctly. Broadbent said that he has part of the preparations as well, and has been to Florida 3 times in the past month, working on the experiment with Doi.

The wings of a boomerang are set at a slight tilt and they have an airfoil design (rounded on one side and flat on the other, just like an airplane wing), which gives the wing lift.

The uneven force caused by the difference in speed between the three wings (two wings on a regular boomerang) applies a constant force which forces the boomerang to turn. So, just as if you lean in one direction while riding a bicycle, and the bike turns in that direction, the boomerang is constantly turning with force in one direction, so that it travels in a circle and comes back to its starting point.

Even though Broadbent says boomerangs wouldn’t work in a vacuum, it still would be fun to test it. The only problem of doing this experiment out in space is that the boomerang would just become another piece of potentially dangerous space junk in Earth orbit.

A videotape of the experiment performed during the STS-123 mission will likely be released in the near future.

Original News Source: Physorg.com and email interview with Gary Broadbent. For more information on Broadbent’s Boomerang’s see Gary’s website

Light Echos from 400 Year Old Supernova Observed for the First Time (Time-lapse Video)

snr0509.thumbnail.jpg

Its observations like these that really give us an idea about how big the cosmos actually is. A star in a small galaxy called the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC), some 160,000 light years from Earth, exploded as a massive supernova 400 years ago (Earth years that is). Combining the observations from an X-ray observatory and an optical telescope, scientists are currently observing the reflected light off galactic dust, only just reaching the Earth hundreds of years after the explosion…

Shakespeare’s first run the stage production, Hamlet, will have been in full-swing. Galileo might have been experimenting with his first telescope. Guy Fawkes could have been plotting to blow up the British parliament. These events all occurred around the beginning of the 17th Century when a bright point of light may have been seen in the night sky. This point of light, in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC), is a massive star exploding, ending its life in a powerful supernova.

Now, 400 years after the event, we can see a “supernova remnant” (SNR), and this particular remnant is known as SNR 0509-67.5 (not very romantic I know). The remnant of superheated gas slowly expands into space and still emits X-rays of various energies. The 400 year old explosion has even been imaged in great detail by the Chandra Observatory currently observing space in X-ray wavelengths. Analysis of the SNR indicates that it was most likely caused by a Type Ia supernova after analysis of the composition of the gases, in particular the quantities of silicon and iron, was carried out. It is understood that the supernova was caused when a white dwarf star in a binary system reached critical mass, became gravitationally unstable (due to fusion reactions in the core stopping) and exploded.

When SNR 0509-67.5 exploded all those years ago, it will have radiated optical electromagnetic radiation (optical light) in all directions of space. Now, for the first time, optical Blanco 4-meter telescope at Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory (Chile) has observed reflected light from within the LMC originating from the supernova, 400 years after the event. Using the (reflected) optical light and X-ray emissions directly from the supernova remnant, scientists have been able to learn just how much energy was generated by the explosion.

Astronomers have even assembled a time-lapse video from observations of the light “echo” from 2001 to 2006. Although there are only five frames to the video, you can see the location of the reflected light change shape as different volumes of galactic dust are illuminated by the flash of supernova light. In each progressive frame, the clouds of gas that become illuminated will be further and further away from us, we are effectively looking further back in time as the light “echoes” bounce off the galactic matter.

An amazing discovery.

Source: Chandra X-ray Observatory

Building a Moon Base: Part 4 – Infrastructure and Transportation

In this exciting but challenging period of space exploration, the time is fast approaching for serious design concepts for the first habitats that will be built on the lunar landscape. In previous articles, we have examined the hazards associated with such an endeavor, we have looked at the structures available to us, we have even detailed a particular hangar-like structure that might use locally mined materials. Now, we look into the possible infrastructure elements that will be needed to support a viable colony on the Moon. Florian Ruess, a structural engineer who is working on the future of habitats in extreme environments, also took some time with the Universe Today to give his opinions on our future on lunar soil…

Imagine trying to build a structure on the surface of the Moon. Two of the biggest obstacles the first lunar settlers will come across are the very low gravity and the fine dust causing all sorts of construction issues. Although it seems likely that the first habitats will be built by automated processes before we even set foot on the moon, fabrication of a settlement infrastructure will be of primary concern to engineers so construction can be made as efficient as possible.

The basic, but optimal shape for a lunar habitat module linked with other modules (image courtesy of Florian Ruess)

Infrastructure will be one of the most important factors concerning mission planners. How will building materials be fabricated? How will the material be supplied to construction workers? How will precious water and food be supplied to the fledgling lunar colony? Can supply vehicles go from A to B with little effort?

Historic examples of the effectiveness of efficient transportation infrastructure can be seen in the coalescence of cities around rivers (traditionally the quickest way to transport people and material around a country). Canals were instrumental in bringing cities to life during the Industrial Revolution in the UK in the late 18th century. As railway lines linked the East and West of North America in the last half of the 19th century, acceleration in population growth was experienced by people uprooting and “homesteading” the new, accessible farmlands. Over the last 50 years, the “Southern California freeway effect” is responsible for the proliferation of gas stations, restaurants, shops, followed by residential areas for workers – eventually, whole towns and cities are based around the ease of access for transportation.

Concepts of a lunar infrastructure (credit: NASA)

Future settlement of the Moon and Mars will most likely be based on a similar principle; the success of a lunar settlement will heavily depend on the efficiency of the transport structure.

It seems likely that most transportation around the Moon will depend on wheeled methods, following from terrestrial vehicles and tried and tested “Moon buggies” from the Apollo missions in the 1960s and ’70s. There are some significant drawbacks, however. Addressing this issue, Florian Ruess, structural engineer and collaborator with Haym Benaroya (whose publication this article is based) point out some problems with this mode of transport:

For any mission there will always be the need for individual transportation and the obvious solution is some wheeled vehicle. But there are a couple of serious issues with this solution:

  • Reduced traction. 1/6 gravity and the lunar soil make traction a problem just like [the Mars Exploration Rovers] Spirit and Opportunity on Mars one can get stuck easily or need to much power to get around.
  • Dust. Apollo experience shows that a lot of dust is levitated by wheeled vehicles. This dust is hazardous to machines and humans when breathed in.”

– Florian Ruess (private communication)

So traveling around in a modified “dune buggy” might not be the answer for an established Moonbase, some form of road infrastructure would be needed if wheeled transportation is used.

Neil Armstrong's footprint in the lunar regolith (credit: NASA)

Disturbing dust on the lunar surface is far from being a minor problem. From NASA’s experience with the Apollo missions, by far the biggest contributor to dust generation was the takeoff and landing of lunar modules. 50% of the regolith is smaller than fine sand and approximately 20% is smaller than the “dusty” 0.02mm that preserved the Neil Armstrong’s first boot prints. It is this very fine component of the regolith that can cause a host of mechanical and health problems:

  1. Vision impairment
  2. Incorrect instrument readings
  3. Dust coating
  4. Loss of traction
  5. Clogging of mechanisms
  6. Abrasion
  7. Thermal control problems
  8. Seal failures
  9. Inhalation

It, therefore, seems obvious that dust creation should be kept to the bare minimum as this factor could be a severe hindrance to the infrastructure of the settlement.

Roads are would be the perfect answer to the new lunar colony. They would provide wheeled vehicles with the much-needed traction (thus having a knock-on effect with the fuel efficiency of the vehicle) and may significantly reduce the amount of dust suspension, especially if the road surface is raised above the surrounding regolith. Roads, however, have their drawbacks. They are enormously costly and may be very difficult to build. Fusing regolith to form a tough surface may be an answer, but as pointed out by Ruess, “…this requires enormous energies, which cannot be provided by solar power alone.” So an alternate form of energy would be required to perform such a construction.

(a) Basic Roman road design features, (b) 2000 road design, (c) model of force distribution (credit: Haym Benaroya, Leonhard Bernold)

Although road construction would be highly desirable, it may not be possible, at least in the early stages of lunar settlement development. One emerging development in alternative space transportation is the vertical take-off and landing method, but as previously stated, rocket-powered take-off and landing produce vast amounts of dust. But should there be multiple bases on the Moon, this might be a possibility, “…a lot of people recommend different solutions for routes that will be used frequently like getting from the landing pad to the settlement or from one settlement to the next,” Ruess adds.

Lunar habitat with a cable-based transportation infrastructure (credit: H. Benaroya, L. Bernold)

Another solution is an established form of transportation. Totally avoiding contact with the surface, thus cutting down on dust and avoiding obstacles, a lunar cable car might be a viable possibility. It seems likely that such a cable car transportation network would be highly effective. “Very large spans will be possible on the Moon and therefore infrastructure cost not exorbitant,” Ruess points out. This possibility is being seriously considered by lunar settlement planners.

Looking back on the previous articles in the series, Florian Ruess comments on whether lunar bases can be mobile and points out some of the severe difficulties facing settlement planners if locally mined materials are to be used:

I am not a big fan of mobile bases. Such a system that includes power generation, communications and especially long-term meteoroid and radiation protection does not seem feasible to me. But the wheeled vehicles could be pressurized designs capable of serving several-day-long science missions. This would be a good solution to expand the capabilities of a permanent base.

Local materials are a crucial yet difficult issue. My research so far has shown that only after a certain presence has been established and experience with lunar issues and materials has been gained we would be in a position to dare and build habitats from local materials. Certainly not before humans set foot on the Moon. And please forget about the much-cited lunar concrete! There are so many showstoppers for this imaginary material that I don’t even want to start mentioning them. The only early local material application I see is meteoroid and radiation protection using regolith as shielding material.

“Building a Moon Base” is based on research by Haym Benaroya and Leonhard Bernold (“Engineering of lunar bases“)

Plus an exclusive interview with Florian Ruess, extreme habitat structural engineer and founder of Habitats for Extreme Environments – HE2

-Florian Ruess, private communication.

Many thanks to Florian Ruess for his time in contributing to this article. For further information about his work and extreme environment habitat designs, visit his website at HE-squared.com.

For more information about the future of lunar settlement, check out the Moon Society and the collaborative resource, Lunarpedia.

Countdown to Earth Hour 2008…

earthhour_wideweb__470x4410.thumbnail.jpg

Do you remember last year when Sydney, Australia made the news by turning their lights out for one hour to show their concern about global warming? Besides being concerned about the effects, especially for my children and grandchildren, as an astronomer I support anything which helps reduce light pollution, even if it’s just for an hour. Beyond extinguishing the lights for 60 minutes at 8pm March 29, 2008, there are lots of things you can do to make Earth Hour 2008 an even greater success. Let’s take a look.

2.2 million people and 2100 Sydney businesses turned off their lights for one hour – Earth Hour – March 29, 2008. According to their information, the greenhouse reduction achieved in the Sydney CBD during Earth Hour was sustained for a year, it would be equivalent to taking 48,616 cars off the road for a year. This year many major global cities are joining Earth Hour in 2008, and they’re are turning a symbolic event into a global movement.

Start showing your support by visiting our own Universe Today Earth Hour page and signing up on the UT page. You’ll see your name appear as an Earth Hour / Universe Today participant! Tell a friend. Better still, tell all your friends, and your family, and your workmates. Just email them with a link to this website. We may or may not make an impact, but it won’t be because we didn’t try. You can also organize your own Earth Hour activities as well and you’ll find packets and information on how to involve your community at the Earth Hour Website.

If you think this is going to be big, then you’re right. Created to take a stand against the greatest threat our planet has ever faced, Earth Hour uses the simple action of turning off the lights for one hour to deliver a powerful message about the need for action on global warming. This simple act has captured the hearts and minds of people all over the world. As a result, at 8pm March 29, 2008 millions of people in the world’s major capitol cities like Aalborg, Aarhus, Adelaide, Atlanta, Bangkok, Brisbane, Canberra, Chicago, Christchurch, Copenhagen, Dublin, Manila, Melbourne, Montreal, Odense, Ottawa, Perth, Phoenix, San Francisco, Suva and Lautoka, Sydney, Tel Aviv, Toronto and Vancouver will be participating as well.

At last count, over 172,000 individuals and nearly 12,000 businesses/organizations have agreed to support Earth Hour. Just who in the astronomy world would do that? In the United States alone you’ll find such great organizations Adler Planetarium, Arizona Science Center, Oceanside Photo and Telescope, StarPals, and The Chicago Astronomer just to name a few. You’d be amazed at the number of schools, universities, restaurants, motels, airlines and others that will be participating.

Sign up now… And let the Universe Today voice be heard!

The Mars Curse

beagle2.thumbnail.jpg

Admittedly, Mars has drawn more space missions than the rest of the Solar System’s planets, but why have nearly two thirds of all Mars missions failed in some way? Is the “Galactic Ghoul” or the “Mars Triangle” real? Or is it a case of technological trial-and-error? In any case, the Mars Curse has been a matter of debate for many years, but recent missions to the Red Planet haven’t only reached their destination, they are surpassing our wildest expectations. Perhaps our luck is changing…

In 1964, NASA’s Mariner 3 was launched from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. In space, its solar panels failed to open and the batteries went flat. Now it’s orbiting the Sun, dead. In 1965, Russian controllers lost contact with Zond 2 after it lost one of its solar panels. It lifelessly floated past Mars in the August of that year, only 1,500 km away from the planet. In March and April, 1969, the twin probes in the Soviet Mars 1969 program both suffered launch failure, 1969A exploded minutes after launch and 1969B took a U-turn and crashed to earth. More recently, NASA’s Mars Climate Orbiter crashed into the Red Planet in 1999 after an embarrassing measurement unit mix-up caused the satellite to enter the atmosphere too low. On Christmas 2003, the world waited for a signal from the UK Mars lander, Beagle 2, after it separated from ESA’s Mars Express. To this day, there’s been no word.

Looking over the past 48 years of Mars exploration, it makes for sad reading. A failed mission here, a “lost” mission there, with some unknowns thrown in for good measure. It would seem that mankind’s efforts to send robots to Mars have been thwarted by bad luck and strange mysteries. Is there some kind of Red Planet Triangle (much like the Bermuda Triangle), perhaps with its corners pointing to Mars, Phobos and Deimos? Is the Galactic Ghoul really out there devouring billions of dollars-worth of hardware?

The strange-looking DR 6 nebula as observed by the Spitzer telescope - well, it could be the face of the Galactic Ghoul… (credit: NASA)

The “Galactic Ghoul” has been mentioned jokingly by NASA scientists to describe the misfortune of space missions, particularly Mars missions. Looking at the statistics of failed missions, you can’t help but think that there are some strange forces at play. During NASA’s Mars Pathfinder mission, there was a technical hitch as the airbags were deflated after the rover mission landed in 1998, prompting one of the rover scientists to mention that perhaps the Galactic Ghoul was beginning to rear its ugly head:

The great galactic ghoul had to get us somewhere, and apparently the ghoul has decided to pick on the rover.” – Donna Shirley, JPL’s Mars program manager and Sojourner’s designer, in an interview in 1997

Well, there are plenty of answers that explain the losses of these early forays to Mars, putting the Galactic Ghoul to one side for now.

Beginning with the very first manmade objects to land on the Martian surface, Mars 2 and Mars 3, Soviet Union-built Mars lander/orbiter missions in 1971. The lander from Mars 2 is famous for being the first ever robotic explorer on the surface of Mars, but it is also infamous for making the first manmade crater on the surface of Mars. The Mars 3 lander had more luck, it was able to make a soft landing and transmit a signal back to Earth… for 20 seconds. After that, the robot was silenced.

The first rover to land on Mars - Made in Russia (credit: Planetary Society)

Both landers had the first generation of Mars rovers on board; tethered to the landing craft, they would have had a range of 15 meters from the landing site. Alas, neither was used. It is thought that the Mars 3 lander was blown over by one of the worst dust storms observed on Mars.

To travel from Earth to Mars over a long seven months, separate from its orbiter, re-enter the Martian atmosphere and make a soft landing was a huge technological success in itself – only to get blown over by a dust storm is the ultimate example of “bad luck” in my books! Fortunately, both the Mars 2 and 3 orbiters completed their missions, relaying huge amounts of data back to Earth.

The ill-fated NASA Mars Observer before launch (credit: NASA)

This isn’t the only example where “bad luck” and “Mars mission” could fall into the same sentence. In 1993, NASA’s Mars Observer was only three days away from orbital insertion around Mars when it stopped transmitting. After a very long 337 day trip from Earth it is thought that on pressurizing the fuel tanks in preparation for its approach, the orbiters propulsion system started to leak monomethyl hydrazine and helium gas. The leakage caused the craft to spin out of control, switching its electronics into “safe” mode. There was to be no further communication from Mars Observer.

Human error also has a part to play in many of the problems with getting robots to the Red Planet. Probably the most glaring, and much hyped error was made during the development of NASA’s Mars Climate Orbiter. In 1999, just before orbital insertion, a navigation error sent the satellite into an orbit 100 km lower than its intended 150 km altitude above the planet. This error was caused by one of the most expensive measurement incompatibilities in space exploration history. One of NASA’s subcontractors, Lockheed Martin, used Imperial units instead of NASA-specified metric units. This incompatibility in the design units culminated in a huge miscalculation in orbital altitude. The poor orbiter plummeted through the Martian atmosphere and burned up.

An artists impression of the Mars Climate Orbiter (credit: NASA)

Human error is not only restricted to NASA missions. The earlier Russian Phobos 1 mission in 1988 was lost through a software error. Neglecting a programming subroutine that should never have been used during space flight was accidentally activated. The subroutine was known about before the launch of Phobos 1, but engineers decided to leave it, repairing it would require the whole computer to be upgraded. Due to the tight schedule, the spaceship was launched. Although deemed “safe”, the software was activated and the probe was sent into a spin. With no lock on the Sun to fuel its solar panels, the satellite was lost.

The Russian Phobos 1 mission to probe Mars and moon Phobos (credit: NASA)

To date, 26 of the 43 missions to Mars (that’s a whopping 60%) have either failed or only been partially successful in the years since the first Marsnik 1 attempt by the Soviet Union in 1960. In total the USA/NASA has flown 20 missions, six were lost (70% success rate); the Soviet Union/Russian Federation flew 18, only two orbiters (Mars 2 and 3) were a success (11% success rate); the two ESA missions, Mars Express, and Rosetta (fly-by) were both a complete success; the single Japanese mission, Nozomi, in 1998 suffered complications en-route and never reached Mars; and the British lander, Beagle 2, famously went AWOL in 2003.

Despite the long list of failed missions, the vast majority of lost missions to Mars occurred during the early “pioneering” years of space exploration. Each mission failure was taken on board and used to improve the next and now we are entering an era where mission success is becoming the “norm”. NASA currently has two operational satellites around Mars, Mars Odyssey and the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. The European Mars Express is also in orbit.

The Mars Exploration Rovers Spirit and Opportunity continue to explore the Martian landscape as their mission keeps on getting extended.

Recent mission losses, such as the British Beagle 2, are inevitable when we look at how complex and challenging sending robotic explorers into the unknown. There will always be a degree of human error, technology failure and a decent helping of bad fortune, but we seem to be learning from our mistakes and moving forward. There definitely seems to be an improving trend toward mission success over mission failure.

Perhaps, with technological advancement and a little bit of luck, we are overcoming the Mars Curse and keeping the Galactic Ghoul at bay as we gradually gain a strong foothold on a planet we hope to colonize in the not-so-distant future

See that Record Breaking Gamma Ray Burst Go! (Video)

grb.thumbnail.jpg

No sooner had NASA’s Swift X-Ray Telescope caught the record-breaking Gamma Ray Burst (GRB) in the act on Wednesday (March 19th), the worlds telescopes swung toward the constellation of Boötes to watch the afterglow of this massive explosion. One instrument in a Chile observatory was observing in Swift’s field of view at the time of the blast and has put together a short frame-by-frame video of the event. So if you missed this historic burst from 7.5 billion years ago (which you probably did!) you can watch it now…

Las Campanas Observatory is located high in the Chilean mountains and was used to observe the afterglow of the massive GRB observed at 2:12 am (EDT) last Wednesday. The Polish instrument called “Pi of the Sky”, a GRB detector array of cameras looking out for optical flashes (or transients) in the night sky. This ground-based instrument was lucky. Taking continuous shots in its wide field of view, the instrument’s automatic flash recognition algorithm detected the explosion two seconds before Swift’s Burst Alert Telescope (BAT). The Polish research group has released the chain of events in the form of an animation with frames 10 seconds apart (shown below). The blast decayed from the brightness of a 5 magnitude star to 11th magnitude over four minutes, allowing it to be seen by the naked eye when it was at its brightest.

One of the most significant results to come out of this multi-instrument observation of this event is that with 10 seconds of precision, the optical emission and gamma-ray emission from a GRB are simultaneous.

The “Pie in the Sky” project is unique in that it surveys the sky on the lookout for GRBs without depending on satellites. It does however use satellite indicators of GRB flashes to confirm its observations. By observing such a wide field of view, taking continuous 10s-interval shots of the sky, the instrument can observe the GRB in the very early stages of the blast.

GRBs are of massive interest to scientists. Generally, GRBs lasting for longer than two seconds are attributed to massive stars collapsing and forming black holes. Therefore observing the first two minutes of the blast and afterglow provides valuable information about black hole formation.

Source: Pie of the Sky

Delays For Shuttle Program?

shuttle-et.thumbnail.jpg

With the current shuttle mission going so well, this news is a little depressing. Future space shuttle missions may be delayed because a backlog of work is developing on external fuel tanks for the shuttles. The tank used by Endeavour for the current mission was the last in the inventory of ET’s built before the 2003 Columbia disaster. The next shuttle flight, scheduled for late May, will use the first of the new design of tanks that include improvements to help eliminate foam shedding. But production issues with subsequent tanks may force delays for future missions, including Atlantis’ STS-125 mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope, currently targeted for August 28. If the delays amount to more than a couple of months, it’s possible the Hubble could give out before the shuttle could get there because of failing batteries and gyroscopes.

Since for the Hubble mission, the shuttle wouldn’t be going to the International Space Station, there would be no safe haven option for Atlantis’ crew if major heat shield damage occurs. The station and Hubble are in different orbits and the shuttle does not have the ability to move from one to the other. As a result, NASA approved plans to have a second shuttle, Endeavour, ready for launch on a rescue mission just in case.

That means NASA needs two ready-to-fly external tanks for the Hubble mission. One should be ready, no problem, but the second one is the issue. Manpower and production issues are the main problems. The people at Michoud had to redo much of the work on existing fuel tanks, and then they took a direct hit from Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Some workers moved elsewhere, and the program has not been at peak production since. Additional unplanned work has also caused delays, such as the upgrade to the fuel sensors that plagued the last shuttle tank, used for the STS-122 mission.

For now, the Hubble mission remains officially scheduled for August 28, but some sources say the mission could be delayed to October. More on this as the picture becomes clearer and the story develops.

Original News Source: CBS News Space Place

Rocketplane Gets a New Pilot

xp-flight-02_640.thumbnail.jpg

The commercial space company Rocketplane Global announced today that Paul Metz has joined the company as Vice President and Chief Test Pilot. Metz fills the spot vacated by former NASA astronaut John Herrington, who left Rocketplane at the end of last year. Perhaps things are looking up for Rocketplane. News from the company has been sparse since Herrington’s departure, as well as since word came out that NASA terminated its Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) agreement with the Kistler side of Rocketplane (RpK) last year because the company failed to meet financial milestones. The one hopeful piece of news came in October 2007 at the X Prize Cup, when Rocketplane announced a major redesign of it’s XP Spaceplane.

Rocketplane also announced on Friday that David Faulkner has been promoted to Chief Technology Officer for the company. Faulkner has been with Rocketplane since 2005 and was Program Manager. He now will manage and direct the development of the company’s technology and vehicle programs. A press release from Rocketplane Global indicated that Faulkner’s promotion and the addition of Metz emphasizes the importance the company is placing on the development of the Rocketplane XP suborbital space vehicle as well as its plan to develop technologies and concepts that will lead to future vehicles.

Metz had previously been one of Lockheed Martin’s chief test pilots, but also recently served as Vice President for Lockheed’s flight test program for different types of aircraft.

Rocketplane Global, Inc. was formed in 2001 to develop, build, and operate vehicles to serve the suborbital space tourism market. Since 2004, Rocketplane has been developing the Rocketplane XP suborbital space vehicle. The vehicle will take passengers beyond 100km in altitude during its flights to space where the passengers will experience more than three minutes of weightlessness and a view of the earth previously only available to astronauts. Rocketplane Kistler is designing the K-1 reusable aerospace vehicle, designed to deliver payloads to orbit and provide a low-cost alternative to single-use launch vehicles.

New Source: Rocketplane Global press release

Camelopardalid and March Geminid Meteor Showers Peak on March 22

meteor.thumbnail.jpg

There’s another two odd meteor showers about to happen. It’s just after Full Moon. Why bother to take a look at the night sky when chances are poor of seeing a meteor? The reason is clear and the cause is confirmation.

On Saturday, March 22, two meteor showers will grace the moonlit evening sky. We’ll start first with the Camelopardalids. These have no definite peak, and a screaming fall rate of only one per hour. They do have one claim to fame however – these are the slowest meteors known – arriving at a speed of only 7 kilometers per second. Any bright streaks you might see belonging to the Camelopardalids will appear to emanate from the north.

Far more interesting will be to watch for the peak of the March Geminids. These were first discovered and recorded in 1973, then confirmed in 1975. With a much improved fall rate of about 40 per hour, these slightly faster meteors will greatly increase your chance of spotting a shooting star. Like the Camelopardalids, the March Geminds are slower than average and will seem to emanate from directly overhead at skydark. But don’t forget to start early before the Moon rises. The moonlight alone will reduce the number of meteors you see by a factor of about 10. The lunar influence causes fewer disturbances if it’s only a few degrees above the horizon, so you have a brief window of opportunity to study this particular stream.

You can make an important contribution by observing when possible. Since the shower wasn’t reported until 1973 and confirmed by a high rate of activity 2 years later, scientists aren’t really sure if the Earth had passed through that particular particle stream until that time. By observing and reporting, even to sources like Universe Today, you are providing an invaluable internet record to help determine if the stream is genuine. It the March Geminids truly are a viable annual shower, this trail might lead to an undiscovered comet.

If you wish to report your findings elsewhere, please visit the Association of Lunar and Planetary Observers (ALPO) and locate the meteor observing tab. In these pages you will also find links to information from the North American Meteor Network (NAMN), and other things to assist you like charts to understand the meteor’s magnitude, the limiting magnitude of your location, and details for recording what you see and how to fill out an observation report. While it’s certainly true you may see absolutely nothing during an hour of observing at skydark, negative observations are also important. This helps to establish if the March Geminids should be considered an annual shower or not. You may also just happen to step outside at the right time and see a flurry of activity as well. Just remember…

When opportunity knocks, you’ve got to be there to open the door!

Astronauts Test Shuttle Tile Repair Techniques

spacewalk-4.thumbnail.jpg

Two astronauts tested a special applicator and “goo” to see how well techniques developed for repairing damaged shuttle tiles work in orbit. Shuttle astronauts Mike Foreman and Bob Behnken used a T-RAD, or Tile Ablator Dispenser to squirt a pink, caulk-like substance called Shuttle Tile Ablator-54 into intentionally damaged shuttle tiles during their six and a half hour spacewalk to test how the tool and material behaves in the weightless vacuum of space. “I’m thrilled with what we saw today,” said ISS flight director Dana Weigel after the spacewalk, adding that T-RAD could also be used to mend torn shuttle insulation blankets. “It behaved very similar to what we saw on the ground, so that gives me a lot of confidence.”

The sample tiles and tools will be returned to Earth to undergo extensive testing on the ground. NASA engineers developed the shuttle tile repair tool after the 2003 Columbia disaster to fix dings in the thousands of ceramic tiles on the shuttle’s underside. “We’ve tested this material on the ground, but have not been able to test it in weightlessness and vacuum at the same time, so we hope to characterize how it performs,” said astronaut Mike Foreman before the spacewalk.

“It’s going to be really valuable to have actually have a test of this in case we ever need this in our bag of tricks for repairing a shuttle, particularly with the Hubble mission upcoming,” astronaut Bob Behnken said from orbit.
STA-54 sample.  Image Credit:  NASA
One of the compounds making up STA-54 causes bubbles to form. On Earth, those bubbles typically rise to the top. The spacewalkers found that with the absence of air or gravity, the bubbles tended to spread throughout the material causing it to bulge slightly in a phenomenon known as “bread loafing.”

Engineers were worried that it might bulge too much, and could cause the material to swell up over the surface layer of surrounding tiles, disrupting air flow during re-entry and causing excessive downstream heating. But during the tests in Thursday’s spacewalk, however, the STA-54 appeared not rise or bubble as much as was anticipated. While bubbles formed, the astronauts were able to use pads to tamp the material down and as the STA-54 “set up,” the swelling seemed to diminish.

“It goes down really well,” Foreman said as he tamped down the thick goop with a sponge-like tool. “It really is like a loaf of bread with a lot of little bubbles in there.”
Parazynski tile repair.  Image credit:  NASA
The astronauts did the tests on the nadir or underside of the Destiny module, using a suitcase-like kit filled with tile samples. There were several different samples with both big and small holes. The spacewalkers worked on this task for several hours, which took up the majority EVA’s duration.

The spacewalkers also performed a few other get-ahead tasks and replaced a failed Remote Power Control Module – essentially a circuit breaker – on the station’s truss. They were unable, however, to unplug a stuck electrical connector from a patch panel in the station’s Z1 truss that would have re-routed power to one of four control moment gyroscopes that helps stabilized the stations attitude. CMG-2 and CMG-3 were wired into the same circuit in the wake of an earlier failure and the cable change was needed to hook CMG-2 back up to its own power supply, restoring lost redundancy. But with the spacewalkers unable to make the change, a single failure could take out both CMGs, a situation NASA wanted to correct.

This was the 108th spacewalk for station construction and maintenance. Behnken and Foreman will begin the mission’s fifth and final spacewalk Saturday at 5:23 p.m EDT.

Original News Sources: NASA TV and CBS Space Place