I like Stephen Colbert. I like space. I like that Stephen Colbert likes space. The other night he had NASA's former Chief Scientist and current Associate Administrator of the Science Mission Directorate, John Grunsfeld, on the show to talk about the upcoming landing of the Mars Science Laboratory. I must inform you that I am highly biased in this matter. Absolutely everything about this mission is friggin' awesome. First, it's the size of a small car. I've gone on road trips in a small car. Granted, life support for me involved the window and a seatbelt, but still. Curiosity* is massive, and doesn't require life support! In space this machine is little more than an inert lump of metal. It actually has to land (safely) on the surface before it can do anything useful. Curiosity will accomplish the transition from space to surface by experiencing seven minutes of sheer, unadulterated terror.
Mars, while smaller than the Earth, does have a significant gravitational field. It would take a lot of fuel to land a behemoth like Curiosity using rockets. Plus, rockets kick up a lot of dust. Just ask anyone who landed on the moon. One might imagine that because of the increased gravity, Mars would have a significant atmosphere. Unfortunately, no. Mars does have an atmosphere, but it is far more tenuous than our own. This means that, while you still have to deal with aerodynamic forces, those forces are not enough to slow the projectile down to anything resembling a rational speed. Any parachute used would have to be huge in order to grab enough air, and strong, because the inertia of a one ton supersonic projectile is massive. To counter these problems and land the craft on the surface, JPL has devised a three step process. First is heat shield aerobraking. This will slow the craft down from interplanetary speeds to the speed of a hypersonic jet. Then, still faster than sound, a parachute will be deployed. The parachute will slow the machine down from a thousand miles an hour to a few hundred miles an hour. Having done it's duty, the parachute is abandoned in favor of a rocket assembly known as the sky crane. This contraption will take Curiosity down to hover seven and a half meters above the surface of Mars. Finally, the rover will be lowered down from the rocket platform to the surface using a winch and cable system. As soon as landing is confirmed, explosive bolts will sever the connection to the skycrane rocket system, which will fly off.** Curiosity will finally be able to wake up and begin it's mission.
The big one is Curiosity. Duh.
Colbert does really well at pacing his interviews. For some it's fast paced sarcastic barbs. For others he slows down and engages in banter and exploratory questions. He seems genuinely excited by science, and space in particular. Whenever he has a science or space guest on, his jocularity feels sincere. This time was no different, but there was a bit of awkwardness when the guest tried to make (I can only assume) a distinction. Dr. Grunsfeld said that he doesn't think that Curiosity will discover anything in the first two years it's on the surface. He said the thing will work fine, it will trundle around and grind up rocks and analayze soil just like it was designed to do. This seemed to be setting up his main point, which seemed to be that Curiosity was just a data collector. The discoveries will come from the people who drive the rover around. Discoveries will be made by the scientists involved with the project. It is people that choose what tasks Curiosity will carry out, and it is them that will analyze the data sent back. The rover is just a tool. It is the people who are working every day that are the true explorers. They are the ones who will make the discoveries, and it is they who deserve the praise for making those discoveries.
I may have used a really liberal definition of the term 'interpret' towards the end there, but I think that's what he was trying to say. He sort of stumbled a bit making the transition from talking about Curiosity to the people who built and run the rover. Happily, Colbert jumped in with a quick summary point that allowed Grunsfeld to make his point simply by agreeing. Regardless, I'm pretty psyched about this. Curiosity will create a huge leap forward in our understanding of the red planet. It will have a Mastcam for large, panoramic shots. It will have a microscope camera for analyzing samples. It will come equipped with multiple spectroscopes, including laser and x-ray induced spectroscopy. Curiosity also comes with a radiation detector, which will help determine viability for human missions. The rover will have an environmental testing station, measuring such things as temperature, wind speed, and air pressure, and a way to test for water ice at or near the surface, plus some other stuff that I didn't dive into. I guess instead of of life support, they loaded this thing down with pure science.
Furthermore, I think that there is a wider, more connected community of space enthusiasts this time around. Back in 1997 the internet wasn't much of a thing, and it certainly didn't offer quite the same social networking capabilities as it does now. Neither did we have the technology to do live webcasts or Youtube or much of anything with video. Now is different. Any one with a camera and some time can create an awesome video. By 2003 we had a lot more capability to connect and create content about our favorite topics, but it was still a far cry from what we have now. To be sure, each rover impacted our society in their own way. For sojourner it was tiny and cute, for Spirit and Opportunity it was a sense of loneliness and epic travel. For both missions it was thousands of amazing pictures. But none of them have had the opportunity to engage the public in the ways that this new mission will.
First off, NASA will be streaming coverage of the event through their website, and their UStream channel. Second, the always capable people over on Google+, including Pamela Gay, Phil Plait, and Fraser Cain will be holding a massive four hour long event. They will no doubt have their own commentary and content prepared, as well as being on hand to answer any questions any one may have. They might have a NASA feed, just because that seems like the sort of awesomeness they are capable of, but if they don't have the feed from NASA, well then I guess I'll just have to open two tabs for the full immersive experience of this Martian landing. And apparently, Maki of Sci-ence.org fame has created a stream of the NASA feed for the World Science Festival. There's also (I only learned through researching this post) a huge space sciences center in Victoria, Australia. They are called, appropriately enough, the Victorian Space Science Education Centre. They also have a Ustream channel, but what exactly they'll have on it I don't know for sure. But they will be the first to receive communications from Curiosity once it's on the surface, using NASA's Deep Space Tracking Network center in Tinbidbilla. So ok, maybe more than just two tads. Also, Tinbidbilla?If you can't wait until Sunday, you could always check out the video above. Or these two, done by Star Trek stars William Shatner and Wil Wheaton! But what if you want to watch this historic moment, live, outdoors, with thousands of random strangers in the middle of the night? Canada seems to be throwing a lot of parties during the landing, and the good folks over at Yuri's Night have a massive list of the various parties taking place across the globe. If you're in the New York, New York area you should head to Times Square, where they'll be broadcasting the event on their Big Screen TV!
For one brief moment, science will replace advertising
I am hereby making an official prediction*** Not only is the buildup to the landing remarkably large, the audience hungry for this event is larger and more diverse then before. There is going to be a lot of people tuning in that night, and it won't be just Americans. I predict that there will be an overwhelming response to the landing of the Curiosity rover, both nationally and internationally. I would hope that the servers at NASA will be able to handle the load. Hopefully they learned their lesson after that whole Dragon catching incident. But if the feed does go down, then that will go to show how many people are excited by this sort of event. And that will send a huge message to our elected officials - People Like Space. There already exists a massive undercurrent of space enthusiasm. There has been a growing interest in space since the Hubble went into service. First it was NASA nerds who kept up to date, with an occasional picture or feature in the science section of the newspaper. Then people fell in love with Sojourner. We mourned the loss of astronauts, and praised the accomplishments of two new rovers. And now, in less than a week, we will once again watch as we deploy a new tool of understanding into the universe. I predict that the huge, international response to Curiosity will provide a strong argument in favor of supporting our national space agency and the growing private space market.
Did I mention the laser capable of frying rock from 7 meters? It's a good thing that the machine most likely to achieve sentience and go on a murderous rampage is on another planet.
While researching this post I came across a number of resources which I did not use directly, but which were of great help in gathering together all the various links I needed. Astroblog WashPo Sci-ence
*How often do you hear the term Shuttle Transport System? Other than technical writing or stuffy bloggers (ahem) it's always, the shuttle.
**Into oblivion, apparently. All that's planned for, and all that is in any of the presentations, is the thing rocketing off to the side a few hundred meters. It's as though a thing disappears from NASA's universe once it is no longer a part of the mission.
***See the first footnote. Also, note to self: Figure out better system re:footnotes
For those of you not in the know, Phil Plait is a bad astronomer. Not that he's bad at astronomy, but that he's got a website called Bad Astronomy. In addition to discussing and debunking bad astronomy and pseudoscience, he also talks a lot about real science and how awesome it is. So yeah, he's pretty cool. Go check it out.
But wait, you may say, he's just a blogger! Yes, but a blogger with a Ph.D. who worked with the Hubble Space Telescope, so he knows what he's talking about. But there are other Ph.D's who don't write blogs, such as the illimitable Alan Stern. He spends his time being the principle investigator for the New Horizons probe (You know, the one headed for Pluto), as well as a number of other planetary science related stuff (Can't you just taste the irony?). Any way, he's also awesome.
Dr. Stern decided that the 20% cut in funding for planetary science was not that awesome, and so he decided to do something about it (Wait, didn't we lose about 20% of our planets recently?). He organized a cross country bake sale/car wash/ shoe shinin', and Dr. Plait wrote about it. And I participated! Or rather, I drove up to Boulder today so that I could sign the letters to various government officials that basically said, 'Hey, remember that 20% cut in funding? Yeah, that was dumb. You go right on ahead and fix that chop chop.' And guess who was there?
Fun fact for the day: I turn into a stuttering fan boy when I meet people like Dr.'s Stern and Plait (That should totally be a band name, btw). I hope I didn't weird them out too much. But whatever. I met them! It was awesome. Dr. Stern shined my shoes. I asked a question, and they answered it! I also ate a cinnamon roll. Then I took a hike, and pictures of stuff I saw on my hike. Like, pretty flowers, and butterflies, and butterflies engaging in dog fights with other butterflies. I never knew those little flapping pieces of pretty were so aggressive! At least, they are with each other. Every time I tried to get with in a few feet of them (for the taking of pictures) they would flit away. But if I stood still, they would ... flit around far away from me. Too far for me to take good pictures.
But I'm a patient person (Oh crap, I hope that doesn't make me virtuous! That would totally destroy my street cred. Looking at butterflies and flowers is 'street', right?) I stood stock still, camera at the ready at chest height. That's when the butterflies got wise and started messing with me. They would flit in close, but before I could take any pictures they would be off again! So finally I decided to just sit and enjoy the spectacle of Top Gun quality butterfly dog fights. So what happens, now that my camera is at my side? They wouldn't leave me alone. There they'd be, flapping there flying superiority at me, being all close up and stuff, while I got indecisive about whether or not I should reach for my camera. Turns out I shouldn't, because as soon as I moved they would fly away again.
This guy was about as big as my hand, and he totally dominated the skies today. Also, pretty!
But I did get a bunch of blurry pictures of vaguely butterfly shaped blurs, and one or two that weren't hardly blurry at all! So all in all, today was pretty freaking awesome for me. Woot!
I have always wanted to go to space. Not only would it be awe inspiring, but you could also pull off some fun pranks. Like spinning your buddy around while they're in the middle of the room. Without gravity, and if you don't spin them towards a wall, they just whirl like a space dervish* until you're able to create a new viral video - "Vomit Spiral". It'll be hilarious.
Or it would be, if you didn't choose a friend who knew about the conservation of momentum and so flings their limbs out as soon as you spin them. Granted, this will still strand your friend and be mildly amusing. But you want that viral video, dammit, and that's never going to happen until your friend hurls! So you decide to jump towards your dizzy friend, momentarily forgetting that you won't come arcing gently down again, like on Earth. No, the only result of your foolhardy leap is to push your friend towards the space couch, where he will watch with much glee as you bounce of the walls like some screaming ping pong ball.
I think I may have an active imagination.
But I never imagined alcohol in space. I mean, I think you could have some nifty fountains in a space hotels space restaurant. I mean sure, it would help out with that spinning prank either way, you or your friend making the viral video. But as a general thing I wouldn't want people to have any more reason to have a queasy stomach than that already provided by being in microgravity.
Luckily, the recent news of 'space Scotch' is mostly about studying the effects of microgravity on maturation (of alcoholic ingredients such as malt and charred oak) and how certain chemicals and their aromas may be effected. So no space stills and space frat parties.
Except this one.
Now some of you may be wondering what the hell NASA is doing wasting money on stuff like this. Which would be perfectly reasonable if it weren't for the fact that this is not a NASA study. It's a private distillery named Ardbeg that contracted Houston based Nanoracks to get their experiment onto the ISS.
Ok, so there are these people who build racks and modules for experiments to go into space. They also team up with CASIS to get those experiments onto the ISS. This means that any given company (like a Scottish distillery) can send their in-company research up into space. And that, my friends, is a prime example of commercial utilization of space.
But wait, I can imagine some of you saying. The ISS is a governmental venture, not private. Doesn't that invalidate the idea that this is a commercial venture? That argument could be valid, but only if this was the pinnacle and extent of commercial enterprise in space. But it's not! There are a number of people that are making all sorts of stuff to facilitate private individuals and business getting into space.
There's Xcor and Masten for launches, a ton of cubesat makers such as Boeing as well as a site that sells all the stuff you need to build one at home! Heck, there's even a website devoted to the freaking hobby of space exploration. Admittedly, it's a somewhat expensive hobby that consists mostly of weather balloons and sounding rockets. But still! Youtube has tons of stuff all about what can be done with a weather balloon.
'O Canada! Our home and native land...'
So no, the commercial argument is not invalidated. The ISS is a way point to a grander future. NASA is mostly serving as a facilitator and encourager more than a permanent resource (Of course NASA will in all likelihood continue to play host to commercial experiments in the future, but more as one choice amongst a plethora of others) NASA is mostly providing the scaffolding for a burgeoning market, plus some seed money to get things started.
Space alcohol sounds kind of silly, not unlike some of my space daydreams. But a story like that is really just one more sign of what's to come. We are fast approaching, and in some ways are already at, the day when going to space is cheap, easy, and you don't have to be a government employee to catch a ride on a rocket.
In 2005, along with then President Bush's 'Vision for Space Exploration', was a section (507) in the NASA authorization act of 2005 [Pdf] that made the ISS a National Laboratory. This makes sense, since it is the worlds highest laboratory (Sorry, High Times. They got you beat. Unless you wanna sponsor a study of the effects of Tetrahydrocannibinol on the human brain while in microgravity, they will always be higher than you. Sorry. But I'm sure that there will be lots of volunteers for that mission if you can talk CASIS into it). Included in that section was the authorization for NASA to contract with outside vendors for the management of the ISS-NL, which goes on to stipulate in 507(c)(3) that there should be a detailed plan for "the management structure for the laboratory, including the rationale for contracting or not contracting with a nongovernmental entity to operate the ISS national laboratory;"
I made this!
In 2011 NASA chose to use the nonprofit firm CASIS for the management structure, but I have yet to hear about the rationale behind that decision. I don't know why it took more than five years to decide to get an outside vendor. I would hazard that it may have something to do with the completion of the ISS, since the NASA Authorization act of 2010 [Pdf] says so in sec. 502. That wouldn't explain why they wanted a third party in the first place. Wouldn't NASA be best placed to decide how to use the laboratory it helped to design and build? Maybe there is a good reason for it, but I haven't been able to find any. Note, this isn't an accusation, more pointing out that it's hard to come by information regarding CASIS and why it was chosen.
Of course, it doesn't seem like CASIS has done much in the six months or so since it assumed responsibility. But that may well be due to an inefficient bureaucracy. Actually, that's not exactly true. I'm sure it's done a lot of stuff. But it's hard to figure out what they may have been doing. You see, as NASAWatch has been covering, there doesn't seem to be a lot of coordination between CASIS and anyone else. You almost never hear them mentioned when there is some new research on the ISS, or if there's a big conference about the ISS, or any other time really. But apparently it's a very stressful job (for not appearing to do much) since the executive director has recently resigned due to "...undue and onerous political pressures..."
I HAZ STARGATE
So what's up with CASIS? Why does it exist? What's the rationale behind it? What does it do, and what has it done? How did it get started? I know a little bit about that. CASIS was supported by Space Florida, an Independent Special District that is dedicated to the growth of the Florida space industry. Fair enough. These special districts are a little weird, but apparently commonplace. I hadn't heard of them before, but it seems a lot of states have them. They are usually created for one specific purpose, such as waste management or going into space. Anyway, CASIS is a big deal with them.
The more I dig into this the more confused I get. I can't seem to find any sort of narrative or explanatory themes to tie all of this together. There's holes all over the place, about why CASIS, why a third party at all, what has CASIS done, why aren't they more prominent in NASA press releases, why did Becker quit, why, why, why ... I don't know. I have a headache now. I'm just gonna post this with a bunch of links and have a lie down in a cool, dark room until my head stops exploding.
You know, I just bet that Space Law is one of the most complex and intricate legal arenas a person could dive into. Oh sure, international trading regulations are complex, probably even more so. But space law has got to be tough. So kudos to Michael Dodge and anyone else that majors in Space Law.
P.S. I almost never post pictures because, well, I don't know for sure. I just can't be all cool and stuff with graphics. Also, I never can find any that I like that are relevant. So the pictures contained in this post have, at best, a tangential relationship with the topic discussed.
Oh my god! UFO! Wait, no, it's just the Moon. Oh my god! What's that point of light to the right! It's a UFO! Oh wait, no, I had my ISO cranked up and it's just noise.
This article is really cool. Not only is it about space, it's about NASA's declining budget! Wait, that's not cool. That's the exact opposite of cool. It is uncool, if you will. Or rather, the fact that NASA has a declining budget is uncool. What's cool about this article is that the good people over at The Guardian have nicely compiled NASA's budget data since 1958. And they have made it freely available for download in a variety of formats. I just downloaded the Excel file and made this!
This took me all of about ten minutes. It would have been less, except I have only the foggiest notion of how Excel works. Which is absolute proof that any idiot can use this data that The Guardian has so kindly supplied about NASA's budget.
Wait, you mean that British newspaper? That's cool. I wish we had cool newspapers like that, who would compile data about the government and then make it freely and easily available to any one who wants it. Is it apparent yet that I think Hans Rosling is cool?I mean jeez, I've used excel like what, once? And that was to create a 'budget' that was an awesome idea for about an hour and then I saved the document and promptly forgot about it. But lookit pretty graph! Hooray!
So you know what, hats off to The Guardian for supplying such excellent information for me!
So I checked out this article from Universe today, which is about the recent rash of astronauts who are selling their Apollo mission memorabilia. NASA doesn't like it, astronauts say they have the right to sell their personal property, and so the two groups are working together to find an agreeable solution, nice and friendly.
After reading the article I decided to check out the authors blog, Vintage Space. I particularly enjoyed this piece written about Apollo 8, or more accurately, the events that led up to the Apollo 8 mission.
Reading this made me wonder what John McCain had to do with with Apollo 8 (You'll have to read the article to find out why). This lead to some genealogical confusion for a bit, but this article from PBS and good ol' Wikipedia helped clear things up for me.
I enjoyed this particular journey through history, I highly recommend reading these articles. Especially the PBS one.
So with the holidays coming on and stuff I don't know how much time I will have to spend writing stuff other than essays and answers to algebra and stuff*. But I don't want you to be left bereft of blogger wisdom (variable definition of 'wisdom' in use here) so I'll just post a bunch of links that I use. These people are usually smarter than me anyhow.
According
to a new poll by IBOPE
Zogby, most people disagree with ending the shuttle and agree with the idea
of a public/private partnership in space. Now that caught my attention. You
see, the shuttle was intended as a low Earth orbit transport vehicle. Private
companies are trying to do exactly that. By shutting down the shuttle we open
the market to private companies.
However,
that's not space exploration, that's space utilization. I think that closing
down the shuttle not only fosters the growth of the private space market, but
it also frees up resources that can be devoted to true space exploration.
Furthermore, once the market has become established, scientific research can be
funded primarily by national institutions. Those institutions can purchase
flights on private rockets instead of requiring a LEO vehicle paid for by
another national organization. This will help improve access to space for
smaller organizations, such as universities.
So, while
I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding the shuttle and private enterprise,
I am glad to see that there is general support of the space program.
However,
I'm not sure I like the poll itself. It was short, and the questions weren't
always easily answerable. The first question asked if you agreed or disagreed
with the decision to end the shuttle. The initial decision was made by Pres.
Bush, and Obama decided to continue that decision when he took office.
Secondly, the conditions under which each decision was made differ from each
other. By clarifying which decision was meant would help clarify peoples
thoughts on the matter.
Map of countries with human spaceflight capability (dark blue)
The third
question asked whether future space exploration should be conducted by NASA or
private companies. There was no distinction made between LEO and GEO
utilization and being the first group to pioneer a new horizon. Getting junk
into space (and hopefully soon, back out of space) is different from first
sending people to Mars or an asteroid.
The fourth
and final question wondered whether people were concerned that other nations
might surpass us in space. The question should have been broken into two parts.
First, ask if you think that other nations will surpass us. Then ask if another
nation surpassing us would concern you.
I do not
think that this poll offers an accurate, in depth view on what people think of
space exploration. It's questions do not provide insightful answers, and they
do not address all the relevant issues. The poll lacks in clear definitions of
terms. Overall, however, the poll's questions do quite well in posing the
question: Should we be exploring space? As the sample size is fairly large, and
somewhat representative, it seems clear that the majority of the public
supports exploring space. But a more nuanced understanding is impossible with
this poll.
Seeing as how congress wanted to push the development of a heavy lift rocket to 2011 instead of the 2015 date that Obama had put forth this past tax day, then I say give them a shot. If Lockheed can produce a HLV before Boeing can, then Lockheed is the company we should go with. If NASA can come up with a system of checks and double checks before doling out money, than NASA can minimize it's risk to an acceptable degree. This will be accomplished by NASA either giving the go ahead with as much assurance as possible that the mission will succeed, or NASA will decide that Boeing is the better option. So I say go ahead, give the home team a shot, see if they've got what it takes.
I've never watched a space launch live, in person. It doesn't seem likely that I ever will. I can, however, console myself with the fact that I have now seen a shuttle launch, live, on television. And it was a good one, too! All early dawn darkness lit up as if by the fires of creation, air torn asunder by the rage of the Gods, and a graceful arc, a brilliant light receding into the darkness. And after, as the sun rises, we see the remnants of it's departure. Noctilucent beauty, pastel light strewn across the face of the sky.
A: Which makes me wonder, what exactly is that gigantic rocket spewing out of it's tail pipe, and how much of it is expelled? Not that I'm saying stop launching stuff into space or anything, I mean, I can't imagine a single shuttle launch is much worse than half of Chicago for about an hour. But this issue does require some attention. I'm not even speaking of emissions laws or anything. First, we don't really know enough to set feasible goals for standards. We must first research alternative fuels in an effort to see which ones are viable, and we must research the technologies that make engines more efficient. Second, being that space exploration is of vital importance, and that there are other, more urgent emissions issue's that need to be addressed (Coal fired power plants!), and that the emissions of Shuttle launches is sparse compared to the emissions of other industries, we should not limit our launches into space based on emissions. We should work to limit those emissions, but not by limiting the number or type of launches undertaken. Before we create any specific emissions goals we first understand what goals might be feasible.
B: Ok, so I don’t really know if the sky sounded as though it were being torn asunder by holy wrath or anything. I was watching this on TV. I just can't imagine anything looking like that not sounding like that.
On the upside, President Obama is due to speak at the Kennedy Space Center on the fifteenth. As he hasn't made too many announcements or spoke too much of his plans for NASA, this should be an interesting speech. Of course, he did make one comment that caused quite a stir. And by comment, I mean the NASA F.Y. 2011 budget. But I still am uncertain on his personal ideas regarding space, apart from all the political, social, and economic factors. How does our president feel about space exploration? I have my own ideas on what should be done, but as I ain't a rocket scientist, I take my own opinion with a grain of salt. I have my predictions for what will be said, and my hopes for what might be said. Regardless of the outcome, it will be a very interesting speech by our president.
Speaking of 2011, April 12th, 2011 will be the official "Fifty Years of Human Space Exploration". You see, Yuri Gagarin made his famous flight into space on April 12th, 1961, ushering in the age of Humanity as a space faring race. I find it to be no surprise that there are celebrations around the world in honor of this historic event. I should like to celebrate Yuri's Night next year, in honor of the first Human in space and the global feeling of peace, wonder, awe and co-operation that began with his flight. I should also like to propose a celebration on July 20th, 2011, the 42nd anniversary of Apollo 11. Those two events, more than any others, encapsulate Humanities birth into the cosmos. First we proved that we could go to space. Then we proved that we could go to other worlds. Now, the only question is which worlds would we like to visit first?
To decide that, though, we must know what technologies are at our disposable. And so we must research the technology a little before we say which destination should be our next goal. We must also consider the cost and benefits of our current space programs. To research the technologies to go, and eventually actually to go to places like Mars is expensive. Maintaining a transport to low Earth orbit is also expensive. We have plenty of data regarding long term stays in space. We know how to fly in deep space. We are nearing completion of the ISS. We no longer need our government space program to maintain a low Earth transport system. The commercial sector can handle that, while NASA focuses on other, more important things. We do not need both expenses. The commercial sector will employ those who will soon be unemployed, because lets face it, if you've worked for NASA and have an excellent school career, then that is your entire resume. And soon, in the fullness of time, NASA will again engage the public in a plan to send Human Beings to a place that no one has gone before. This speech will not tell us exactly when or where we will be going. But it will layout the path that we need to take to one day go there.
Russia wants to go to Apophis and change it's course in order to prevent the asteroid from hitting the Earth. WTOP Pravda
Anatoly Perminov, rocket scientist. Quite accomplished and credentialed. But it seems that he's spinning a party line. Why can he not quote his source? Where is his refutation of the NASA figures for collision? Who made the observations he's going off of? Why bring up such sentiment as
"People's lives are at stake. We should pay several hundred million dollars and build a system that would allow to prevent a collision, rather than sit and wait for it to happen and kill hundreds of thousands of people"?
Why should we pay? Who should pay? According to Perminov, Russia will create the plan, and then invite other nations to participate. Of course, since the system won't be built at that point, it's likely that part of the deal is that you have to pay to play.
Why is he spinning? Well, maybe intercepting and changing the trajectory of Apophis is not the primary goal. It may be just a cover for something else involving long term space travel and complex maneuvers. Is it possible that Russia is aiming for the Moon? After all, America beat them to the Moon forty years ago, and now there are other nations poised to. Russia did not like being beat by America, and likely does not want to be beat again, especially as China is one of the most likely to go to the Moon next. But Russia cannot come right out and say, we're off to the Moon. As it is, those nations eyeing the Moon do not have the goal a high priority. But if Russia announces that it's headed for the Moon, then some countries and China certainly would rev up their space program.
Why should we pay? Everyone, ostensibly because we are all facing imminent threat, and the time to act is now. Of course, we're not really facing any sort of threat and we will know long before the event that we will be struck. But it does not seem that we will be paying for a preventative, life saving mission. It sounds like we will be financing Russia's politically motivated moon shot.
Why demand that Russia come up with the plan and then we follow it? If the ultimate goal is the Moon yet Russia's stated goal is changing the trajectory of Apophis, then Russia will have inevitable contradictions in priorities. Russia may push an engine that is better suited for a Human moon shot, or a guidance system that that can also guide you to a moon landing, and if other nations are in on the planning stage then the best systems for the stated mission will be used. Russia must tailor the plan to their ultimate goals and then hide that within the plan that gets presented to other nations. I'm sure that they would have areas that they're willing to compromise with, so they can be seen to "show willing" but it they will not change certain parts of the plan for baffling reasons. If no one signs up, then they do it anyway, but if they can they will dupe other people into financing them.
Russia is going to make a play for the Moon, and is hiding it's attempts under the shroud of Apophis, and hopes that other nations will buy into their plan.
But we should not ignore this threat. Minor though it is, it's consequences are deadly. As NASA plans, we should monitor the situation, possibly sending a radio transmitter to the asteroid. We have plenty of time to avoid catastrophe, and we need time to gather more information. We do not want to accidentally be the cause of our own demise. NASA claims that we will know by 2014 what the asteroid will do. That still leaves us twelve years to do something about it before the 2026 deadline. If we could go to the Moon in eight and a half years, certainly we can send a robot to bump into a rock in twelve.
I may have used a really liberal definition of the term 'interpret' towards the end there, but I think that's what he was trying to say. He sort of stumbled a bit making the transition from talking about Curiosity to the people who built and run the rover. Happily, Colbert jumped in with a quick summary point that allowed Grunsfeld to make his point simply by agreeing. Regardless, I'm pretty psyched about this. Curiosity will create a huge leap forward in our understanding of the red planet. It will have a Mastcam for large, panoramic shots. It will have a microscope camera for analyzing samples. It will come equipped with multiple spectroscopes, including laser and x-ray induced spectroscopy. Curiosity also comes with a radiation detector, which will help determine viability for human missions. The rover will have an environmental testing station, measuring such things as temperature, wind speed, and air pressure, and a way to test for water ice at or near the surface, plus some other stuff that I didn't dive into. I guess instead of of life support, they loaded this thing down with pure science.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vvy__3l7NOCSeMvmV6NONJqs4JNGjb6fA5KNqv0-vCgMWQm6ovy1w41LbW8m7CAHN45TC8jYrrfcu3Em0eXValDY3urMKxaeksSgtTkPRULtuZ5wFRmTaO36ucll9Rps9wGY5biv_qicxjmrmLhZVA=s0-d)