MESSENGER was a great example of how NASA’s reputation for solid engineering can extend the life of their spacecraft far beyond anyone’s expectations. Originally slated for a one year mission once it reached it’s destination (a 7 year long journey in itself) MESSENGER continued to operate around Mercury for another 3 years past its original mission date, providing all sorts of great data on the diminutive planet that hugs our sun. However after being in orbit for so long its fuel reserves ran empty leaving it unable to maintain its orbit. Then last week MESSENGER crash landed on Mercury’s surface putting an end to the 10 year long mission. However before that happened MESSENGER sent back some interesting data around Mercury’s past.
As MESSENGER’s orbit deteriorated it creeped ever closer to the surface of Mercury allowing it to take measurements that it couldn’t do previously due to concerns about the spacecraft not being able to recover from such a close approach. During this time, when MESSENGER was orbiting at a mere 15KMs (just a hair above the max flight ceiling of a modern jetliner) it was able to use its magnetometer to detect the magnetic field emanating from the rocks on Mercury’s surface. These fields showed that the magnetic field that surrounds Mercury is incredibly ancient, dating back almost 4 billion years (right around the creation of our solar system). This is interesting for a variety of reasons but most of all because of how similar Mercury’s magnetic field is to ours.
Of all the planets in our solar system only Earth and Mars have a sustained magnetic field that comes from an internal dynamo of undulating molten metals. Whilst the gas giants also generate magnetic fields they come from a far more exotic form of matter (metallic hydrogen) and our other rocky planets, Venus and Mars, have cores that have long since solidified, killing any significant field that might have once been present. Mercury’s field is much weaker than Earth’s, on the order of only 1% or so, but it’s still enough to produce a magnetosphere that deflects the solar wind. Knowing how Mercury’s field evolved and changed over time will give us insights not only into our own magnetic field but of those planets in our solar system who have long since lost theirs.
There’s likely a bunch more revelations to come from the data that MESSENGER gathered over all those years it spent orbiting our tiny celestial sister but discoveries like this, ones that could only be made in the mission’s death throes, feel like they have a special kind of significance. Whilst it might not be the stuff that makes headlines around the world it’s the kind of incremental discovery that gives us insight into the inner workings of planets and their creation, something we will most definitely need to understand as we venture further into space.
Science reporting and science have something of a strained relationship. Whilst most scientists are modest and humble about the results that they produce the journalists who report on it often take the opposite approach, something which I feel drives the disillusionment of the public when it comes to announcing scientific progress. This rift is most visible when it comes to research that challenges current scientific thinking something which, whilst needs to be done on a regular basis to strengthen the validity of our current thinking, also needs to be approached with the same trepidation as any other research. However from time to time things still slip through the cracks like the latest news that the EmDrive may, potentially, be creating warp bubbles.
Initially the EmDrive, something which I blogged about late last year when the first results became public, was a curiosity that had an unknown mechanism of action necessitating further study. The recent results, the ones which are responsible for all the hubbub, were conducted within a vacuum chamber which nullified the criticism that the previous results were due to something like convection currents rather than another mechanism. That by itself is noteworthy, signalling that the EmDrive is something worth investigating further to see what’s causing the force, however things got a little crazy when they started shining lasers through it. They found that the time of flight of the light going through the EmDrive’s chamber was getting slowed down somehow which, potentially, could be caused by distortions in space time.
The thing to note here though is that the previous test was conducted in atmosphere, not in a vacuum like the previous test. This introduces another variable which, honestly, should have been controlled for as it’s entirely possible that that effect is caused by something as innocuous as atmospheric distortions. There’s even real potential for this to go the same way as the faster than light neutrinos with the astoundingly repeatable results being created completely out of nothing thanks to equipment that wasn’t calibrated properly. Whilst I’m all for challenging the fundamental principles of science routinely and vigorously we must remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and right now there’s not enough of that to support many of the conclusions that the wider press has been reaching.
What we mustn’t lose sight of here though is that the EmDrive, in its current form, points at a new mechanism of generating thrust that could potentially revolutionize our access to the deeper reaches of space. All the other spurious stuff around it is largely irrelevant as the core kernel of science that we discovered last year, that a resonant cavity pumped with microwaves can produce thrust in the absence of any reaction mass, seems to be solid. What’s required now is that we dive further into this and figure out just how the heck it’s generating that force because once we understand that we can further exploit it, potentially opening up the path to even better propulsion technology. If it turns out that it does create warp bubbles than all the better but until we get definitive proof on that speculating along that direction really doesn’t help us or the researchers behind it.
Space debris is becoming more of an issue as time goes on with the number of objects doubling in the last 15 years. Part of that problem is inevitable as the stage based approach to rocketry, whilst being the most efficient way to transport mass to orbit, unfortunately leaves behind a considerable amount of mass. This, combined with the numerous defunct satellites and other bits of junk, means that our lower orbits are littered with objects hurtling through space with enough force to cause some rather significant damage to anything else we put up there. Solving this problem isn’t easy as just picking it up is far more complicated than it sounds. Thus researchers have long thought of ideas to tackle this issue and scientists working at the RIKEN institute may have come up with a workable solution for some of the most dangerous and hardest to remove debris out there.
The idea comes off the back of the Japanese Experiment Module – Extreme Universe Space Observatory (JEM-EUSO) telescope which is slated to be launched and installed on the International Space Station sometime in 2017. The telescope is designed to use the Earth’s atmosphere as a giant detector for energetic particles which will leave a trail of light behind them as they decay in the Earth’s atmosphere. The design of the telescope, which consists of three large lenses that direct the light to some 137 photodetector modules, means it has an extremely wide field of view. Whilst this is by design for its primary mission it also lends itself well to detecting space debris over a large area, something which is advantageous to the ISS which needs to do everything it can to avoid them.
However that’s only half the solution; the other half is a freaking laser.
Scientists at the RIKEN institute have posited that using something like the CAN laser, which is a fibre based laser that was originally designed for use in particle accelerators, could then be used to zap space junk and send it back down to Earth. This kind of approach only works for debris that are centimeters in size however they’re among some of the most devastating pieces of junk due to the difficulty in detecting them. With the JEM-EUSO however these bits of debris could be readily identified and, if they’re within the reach of the laser, heated up so their orbit begins to decay.
The current plan is to develop a proof of concept device that uses a 1/10th scale version of the current JEM-EUSO telescope combined with a 100 fiber laser. Whilst they haven’t provided any specifications beyond that going off their full scale design (10,000 fibers) the concept should be able to deorbit debris up to a kilometer away. The full scale version on the other hand would be able to zap space junk at a range of up to 100km, an incredible feat that would dramatically help in cleaning up Earth’s orbit. The final stage would be to develop a standalone satellite that could be put into a 800km polar orbit, one of the most cluttered orbits above Earth.
Our approach to tackling space debris is fast becoming a multi-faceted approach, one that will require many different methods to tackle the various types of junk that we have circling our Earth. Things like this are the kind of approach we’ll need going forward as one launch will be able to eliminate several times its own mass in debris before its useful life is over. It’s far from an unsolvable problem however whatever solutions we develop will need to be put to use soon lest our low orbits become a place that no man can ever venture through again.
The past couple decades have seen the rise of a burgeoning private space industry, one that’s become dominated by companies founded by entrepreneurs who made their original fortunes in industries that couldn’t have been more different. What they’ve accomplished in that timeframe has been staggering making the long standing giants of this industry look archaic by comparison. However their track records for delivering in fields that these new companies can’t yet service is what has kept them going but the time is fast approaching when even their golden tickets will be up for auction. At least one company doesn’t appear to be resting on its laurels however with United Launch Alliance, a partnership between Lockheed-Martin and Boeing, announcing their cut price launch system called Vulcan.
As the banner’s imagery alludes to ULA’s Vulcan is an all-American vehicle, ditching the reliance on Russian built engines that have been the mainstay of their rockets for quite a while now. That’s caused some consternation as of late as the USA tries to wean itself off its reliance for Russia to provide access to space as well as the well publicized failures of a few choice engines. It’s hardly a surprising move given that many other US based companies are looking to bring their manufacturing back on-shore, both for quality control reasons as well as for publicity purposes. Regardless of where its made though what will really define this rocket is how it performs and how much it will cost.
ULA has said that the Vulcan will follow in the footsteps of the Delta-IV, offering multiple configurations from medium-lift all the way up to heavy-lift. The way this will be achieved will be through the use of different sized payload fairings as well as additional strap on solid rocket boosters, allowing the rocket to be configured to match the payload its delivering into orbit. ULA is being rather coy about the range of payloads that Vulcan will be able to service however if it’s anything like the system it will ultimately be replacing it will be a direct competitor to the future Falcon Heavy. At this point I’d usually make a quip about the SpaceX equivalent being vastly cheaper however ULA is aiming for a street price of $100 million per launch which isn’t too far off SpaceX’s projected price for their craft.
This rather extraordinary drop in price (down from some $350 million for a comparable launch on the Delta-IV) comes on the back of making the Vulcan reusable, eliminating a lot of the costs of rebuilding a rocket from scratch for every launch. However unlike the fully reusable system that SpaceX and others are pursuing (which, unfortunately, suffered another failure today) ULA is instead taking a piecemeal approach to reusability with the first part being a mid-air recovery of the engine section using a helicopter. Considering that the engines are among the most expensive components on rockets recovering them only makes sense and, potentially, has a higher chance of succeeding than other approaches currently do.
It’s good to see that the private space industry has been able to put some pressure on the long standing giants, forcing them to innovate or be pushed out of space completely. Whilst Vulcan might still be quite a few years away from seeing its first launch it shows that ULA recognise the position they’re in and are willing to compete their way out of it. Hopefully we’ll see some more details on the actual specifications of this craft sometime soon as depending on the different configurations (and their potential costs) this could even prompt SpaceX to rethink their approach. The result of an innovation war between those two giants can only mean great things for the space industry as a whole and, by extension, us as potential space faring beings.
We’ve known for a long time now that Mars once contained vast reservoirs of water and that even in its apparently dry state there was indications of water still hiding in various places. The search for water on Mars is a twofold with the two main objectives being finding environments suitable to life and secondly for potential use by future manned missions. Whilst we’ve succeed in confirming that yes, water once covered Mars and it still exists there today, we’re still finding out just how extensive the reservoirs are. As it turns out Mars may be flush with more water than we first expected and it’s been right under our noses this entire time.
The surface of Mars is a barren wasteland, covered in the same monotonous coloring that gives it that signature red tinge. The poles are the exception to this, harboring large water ice caps that get blanketed with a layer of dry ice (frozen carbon dioxide) in the winter. The reason for this is that due to the low pressure of Mars’ atmosphere exposed water anywhere else on the planet simply subliminates, turning straight from ice to water vapor before being swept away by Mars’ turbulent winds. However new research from the University of Copenhagen has revealed that water ice has managed to survive in other places around Mars and has done so in great quantities.
As it turns out many of the geological features we’ve observed on Mars that we’ve assumed to simply be mountains or hills are in fact dust covered glaciers which pepper the martian surface near the poles. This thick layer of dust has protected them from Mars’ atmosphere, preventing the ice from sublimation away. This dust also makes them appear like any other geological feature that you’d find on Mars’ surface instead of the towering walls of ice that we’re used to seeing here on Earth. The researchers were able to determine that these were water ice glaciers by using radar measurements from the numerous spacecraft we have orbiting the red planet and how they’re flowing under their protective dust blankets.
The amount of ice that these glaciers contain is quite staggering, enough that if it was spread out over the surface of Mars it would blanket it in a layer 1.1m thick. Such giant reservoirs provide huge opportunities for both exploration and scientific purposes and potentially paves a way for a sustainable human settlement. Whilst liquid water is always the most viable place to look for life we’ve found dozens of examples of microbial life living in some pretty harsh conditions and these glaciers might be a great place to start looking. That and water is one of the main components in several types of rocket fuel, something we’ll need if we want to do multiple return missions to Mars.
It’s incredible to note that our view of Mars has changed so drastically over the past couple decades, going from a barren wasteland that could never have housed life to a viable candidate, flush with water reserves everywhere. This latest discovery just goes to show that we can’t simply rely on visual data alone as even a well studied planet like Mars can still hide things from us and can do it in plain sight. The next step is to dig beneath Mars’ thick dust blanket to peer into these glaciers and, potentially, find something wriggling down there.
It’s been 17 years since the first part of the International Space Station was launched into orbit and since then it’s become a symbol of humanity’s ability and desire to go further in space. The fact that NASA and Roscosmos have remained cooperative throughout all the tumultuous times that their parent countries have endured speaks to the greater goal that they both seek, along with all of the other participating nations. However, just like any other piece of equipment, the ISS will eventually wear out requiring replacement or significant revamping in order to keep going. The current plans are to keep it going through to 2024 however past that date it’s likely that the ISS will meet its firey end, burning up in a controlled re-entry back to Earth.
Russia had made its intent clear when this fateful time arrived: it would detach all its current modules and then form its own space station in orbit to continue operations. Such an exercise, whilst possible, would be non-trivial in nature and by Russia’s own accounts would likely only give those modules another 4 years worth of life before the maintenance costs on the aging hardware outstripped any potential benefits. Thus the pressure has been on to start looking towards designing a replacement orbital space station, one that can support humanity’s activities in space for the next few decades.
Roscosmos recently announced that they had committed to building the ISS’s replacement with NASA with the details to be forthcoming. NASA, whilst praising Russia’s commitment to continuing ISS operations to 2024, didn’t speak to a potential future space station. Whilst they didn’t outright deny that NASA and Russia aren’t or won’t be working on a future space station together they have said in the past that they’d hope that the private space industry would be able to provide such capability soon. That’s looking like it will be happening too, given that Bigelow is hoping to ship their BEAM module to the ISS by the end of this year.
There’s every chance that NASA and Roscosmos have been in talks behind the scenes to work on the next generation space station and Russia simply jumped the gun on announcing the collaboration. It does seem a little odd however as their previous announcement of breaking away from the ISS when the deorbit date came was rather…hostile and most expected NASA and Roscosmos to simply part ways at that point. Doing an about face and announcing a collaboration is great news however it just seems odd that NASA wouldn’t say something similar if they were actually doing it. So either Russia’s just really excited to make an announcement or there’s a larger play happening here, but I can’t imagine NASA being guilted into committing to building another ISS.
I’m hopeful that it’s not a lot of hot air as the ISS has proven to be both a valuable science experiment as well as an inspirational icon to spur the next generation to pursue a career beyond the Earth’s surface. We’ve learnt many lessons from building the now football field sized station in orbit and the next one we build can be that much better because of them. That, combined with the numerous benefits that comes from international collaboration on a project of this scale, means that there’s still an incredible amount of value to derive from something like the ISS and I hope Roscosmos’ ambition is based in reality.
The last decade has seen NASA change tack quite a few times, mostly under the direction of different presidents who had very different ideas about how the venerable agency should function. Much of it came in the form of a lot of hand wringing about whether or not we should return to the Moon or simply go straight to Mars, with the current strategy to put NASA astronauts on our red sister sometime in the 2030s (although they might be too late if SpaceX has their way). This new direction included sending astronauts to a near-Earth asteroid by 2025 in order to vet some of the technology required to eventually send those astronauts to Mars and NASA has just detailed what that mission will be.
The initial mission was going to attempt to capture an entire asteroid, one around 8m in diameter, using an inflatable cylinder that would envelope the asteroid and then return it to a cis-lunar (between the Earth and the Moon) orbit. Now this wouldn’t have been a massive asteroid, probably on the order of 8m or so, but it still would have been a pretty massive endeavour to bring it back to a closer orbit. However there was another potential option for this mission: instead of retrieving the whole asteroid a probe would instead pluck a small boulder from the surface of a much larger asteroid and then return that back to the cis-lunar orbit. NASA announced today that the second option would be the one they’d pursue going forward with the mission timeframe still slated for sometime in the next decade.
Interestingly the second option is significantly more expensive, to the tune of $100 million, however the technology that will be developed to support it was seen as being of much more benefit than the other mission. Once a candidate asteroid has been selected the craft will be launched into orbit around it where it will identify and select a boulder for retrieval. It will then land on the boulder, capture it, and then lift it back off into orbit around the asteroid again. The craft will remain there for some time afterwards to see if the idea of a gravity tractor craft could work to divert a potentially dangerous asteroid from colliding with Earth. Then, depending on how successful that was, the craft will either remain there a little longer or begin the journey back towards earth, it’s newly captured asteroid boulder in tow. Then astronauts from Earth will embark on a month long mission to travel to the asteroid, study it and then potentially bring it (or at least samples) back to Earth.
It’s an ambitious mission but one that will be the proving ground for the vast majority of technologies required to get humans to Mars. Whilst we’ve learnt a lot about long duration spaceflights thanks to the International Space Station there’s a lot more we need to develop in order to support the same duration flights away from the protection of our Earth. Specifically this relates to the radiation shielding requirement (something which still doesn’t have a great solution) but there’s also numerous other questions that will need to be answered before we launch a craft towards Mars. A month to a nearby asteroid fragment might not sound like much but it will be another giant leap forward technology wise.
NASA is stil a far cry from its heydays during the cold war but its starting to rekindle that explorer spirit that drove them to achieve such great things all those years ago. Opting for the more ambitious mission profile means that our understanding will be more greatly increased as a result, hopefully fueling further exploration with a view to us one day becoming a multi-planet species. We’re still a while away from seeing this happen but it’s so good to finally see a light at the end of the tunnel.
Establishing lunar colonies seems like the next logical step, it’s our closest celestial body after all, however it might surprise you to learn that doing that might in fact be a lot harder than establishing a similarly sized colony on Venus or Mars. Without an atmosphere to speak of our Moon’s surface is an incredibly harsh place with the full brunt of our sun’s radiation bearing down on it. That’s only half the problem too as since the day/night cycles last 2 weeks you’ll spend half your time in perpetual darkness at temperatures fast approaching absolute zero. There are ways around it however and recent research has led to some rather interesting prospects.
Whilst the surface of the Moon might be unforgiving going just a little bit below the surface negates many of the more undesirable aspects. Drilling into the surface is one option however that’s incredibly resource intensive, especially when you consider that all the gear required to do said drilling would need to be sent from Earth. The alternative is to use structures that are already present on the Moon such as caverns and other natural structures. We know that these kinds of formations are already present on the Moon thanks to the high resolution imagery and gravity mapping we’ve done (the Moon’s gravity field is surprisingly non-uniform) but just how big these structures could be has remained somewhat of a mystery.
Researchers at Purdue university decided to investigate just how big structures like these could be, specifically looking at how big lava tubes could get if they existed on the Moon. During its formation, which would have happened when a large object collided with the then primordial Earth, the surface of the Moon would have been ablaze with volcanic activity. However due to its much smaller size that activity has long since ceased but it would have still left behind the tell tale structures of its more tumultuous history. The researchers then modelled how big these tubes could have gotten given the conditions present on the Moon and came up with a rather intriguing discovery: they’d be huge.
When you see the outcome of the research it feels like an obvious conclusion, of course they’d be bigger since there’s less gravity, but the fact that they’re an order of magnitude bigger than what we’d see on Earth is pretty astounding. The picture above gives you some sense of scale for these potential structures, able to fit several entire cities within them with an incredible amount of room to spare. Whilst using such structures as a basis for a future lunar colony presents a whole host of challenges it does open up the possibility to the Moon having much more usable space than we first thought.
Getting humans anywhere in the solar system is messy, difficult and above all expensive. We creatures of flesh and bone have an inordinate amount of requirements that need to be met so we don’t cark it, necessitating a whole bunch of things that our robotic counterparts simply don’t need.Thus manned space exploration missions aren’t usually at the forefront of science, instead they’re done to win over the hearts and minds of the people, inspiring the next generation to continue with these endeavours. I think this is why many of the general public wanted Mars One to succeed even though it was clear from the onset that the project would never deliver on its lofty goals.
Mars One was announced almost 2 years ago amid a flurry of other Mars related news, something which I’m sure helped elevate its profile above what it would have been otherwise. The idea plays heavily on the romanticized notion of the frontier, that us regular people could be a part of something greater by living at the very edge of human existence. The project made no secret that it was going to be a one way trip and so it took on this idea that it was some kind of noble sacrifice for greater good of humankind. Of course that idea kind of fell apart when they said that the mission would be mostly funded through a reality television series that they’d film as part of it. Not that this discouraged anyone as apparently tens of thousands of people applied for it.
I’ve said before that a one way trip to Mars isn’t a noble idea at all, being selfish more than anything, and the Mars One mission played into the egotistical mindset required by someone who’d want to undertake this mission. Sure there might be some good science done along the way however the way that Mars One was approaching it, which was by using external contractors to do the majority of the heavy lifting, wouldn’t be driving anything forward that wasn’t already well underway. That, coupled with the fact that they really didn’t seem to have any revenue source apart from the TV series (which they never announced a timeline for), meant that it was looking pretty sketchy even before the project got seriously underway.
Now we’ve had one of the top 100 finalists break their silence on the process and the insights he’s given have been pretty damning. It seems that the selection process hasn’t been that rigorous at all with the only things being required so far being the initial video, a questionnaire and a quick Skype call with the chief medical officer. Worst still it appears that making it into the top 100 could be as easy as just giving them money as the selection process is heavily based off the number of points a candidate has which, funnily enough, can be acquire by purchasing Mars One merchandise. The final nail in the coffin is that Mars One appears to have lost its contract with the media company that was going to do the TV series, something which was supposed to bring them the bulk of the $6 billion they’d need.
In all honesty it shouldn’t be that surprising as the writing was on the wall for Mars One from the day it was first announced. I’m always willing to be proven wrong , heck if they managed to pull this off I would’ve shouted their success from the rooftops, but the more we find out about Mars One the less likely it appears that they’ll ever get anything off Earth. Mars One is yet to comment on these recent revelations and I doubt they will as they’re likely hoping everyone will just write this off as one disgruntled participant. I for one am not and I hope you, dear reader, will heed his words carefully.
Whenever I think of a tidally locked planet, like say Mercury, the only image that comes to mind is one that is barren of all life. You see for tidally locked systems the face of the smaller body is always pointing towards the larger one, like our Moon is towards Earth. For planets and suns this means that the surface of the tidally locked planet would typically turn into an inferno with the other side becoming a frigid wasteland, both devoid of any kind of life. However new research shows that these planets might not be the lifeless rocks we once thought them to be and, in fact, they could be far more Earthlike than we previously thought.
Scientists have long theorized that planets of this nature could potentially harbour a habitable band around their terminator, a tenuous strip that exists between the freezing depths of the cold side and the furnace of the hot side. Such a planet wouldn’t have the day/night cycles that we’re accustomed to however and it would be likely that any life that evolved there would have adapted to the permanent daylight. There’d also be some pretty extreme winds to contend with as well due to the massive differences in temperature although how severe they were would be heavily dependent on the thickness of the atmosphere. Still it’s possible that that little band could harbor all sorts of life, despite the conditions that bookended its environment.
However there’s another theory that states that these kinds of planets might not be the one sided hotbeds that we initially thought them to be. Instead of being fully tidally locked with their parent star planets like this might actually still rotate thanks to the heavy winds that would whip across their surface. These winds would push against the planets surface, giving it enough rotation to overcome the tidal locking caused by the parent star’s gravity. There’s actually an example of this within our own solar system: Venus which by all rights should be tidally locked to our Sun. However it’s not although it’s extremely long days and retrograde rotation (it spins the opposite way to every other planet) hints at the fact that its rotation is caused by forces that a different to that from every other planet.
Counterintuitively it seems that Venus’ extremely thick atmosphere might be working against it in this regard as the modelling done shows that planets with thinner atmospheres would actually experience a higher rotational rate. This means that an Earthlike planet that should be tidally locked would likely not be and the resulting motion would be enough to make the majority of the planet habitable. In turn this would mean that many of the supposedly tidally locked planets we’ve discovered could actually turn out to be habitable candidates.
Whilst these are just beautiful models for now they can hopefully drive the requirements for future craft and observatories here on Earth that will be able to look for the signatures of these kinds of planets. Considering that our detection methods are currently skewed towards detecting planets that are close to their parent stars this will mean a much greater hit rate for habitable candidates, providing a wealth of data to validate against. Whether we’ll be able to get some direct observations of such planets within the next century or more is a question we won’t likely have an answer to soon, but hopefully one day we will.