Saturday, December 29, 2007
Saturday, December 22, 2007
NASA just put out a press release announcing the possibility that an asteroid 164 feet (50 meters) across may slam into Mars next month. Based on the uncertainties in its trajectory, scientists are giving it a 1 in 75 chance of impact. The asteroid is traveling at about 30,000 miles per hour. If it hits Mars, the impact would release as much energy as three million tons of dynamite, and would leave a crater more than a half-mile wide.
It will be really interesting if this thing actually does impact Mars. There are enough spacecraft on and around the red planet that we would get some really interesting information about the effects of medium-sized impacts (not to mention some awesome pictures of the aftermath). A lot of the press releases have been comparing this potential impact with the Tunguska event: a large explosion over Siberia in 1908. This is misleading though, because the Tunguska event was likely caused by a mid-air explosion of an asteroid, rather than an impact into the surface. Since the explosion happened in mid-air, nobody is quite sure how large the impactor was. In fact, recent results show that it may have been only 20 meters across!
In any case, I find it pretty amazing that we are good enough at tracking rocks in space to be able to tell whether or not they will hit, not just the earth, but any other planet as well. This potential impact on Mars should also serve as a reminder that things like this can and do happen to earth too.
The Arecibo radar/radio telescope has been crucial in identifying and studying near-earth asteroids, but recently its funding for planetary radar was cut to save a few million dollars. Planetary radar is the best way to track potentially dangerous objects, and Arecibo is 20 times more sensitive than any other radar telescope. Arecibo's planetary radar could literally save the world, and it is being shut down to save money. To learn more, check out this statement from the Planetary Society.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
The Astronomy Picture of the Day website just put up their choices for Astronomy Picture of the Year 2007. Believe it or not, my personal favorite is not a photo of Mars. It's of the spectacular Comet McNaught from last January:
Sunday, December 16, 2007
(Image Credit: NASA)
Picture a world where the year is 5 earth-days long, and the sun never rises or sets, but remains fixed directly overhead. The cloud tops on the sunlit side of the planet are thousands of degrees, and are made of vaporized minerals and metals. Iron smog and wisps of quartz are shunted from the scorching daylit side to the perpetually dark night side, which glows a dull red, pouring its excess heat into space. The upper hydrogen atmosphere is continually ripped from the planet and streams out into space like the tail of a comet.
Although it sounds like it belongs in the realm of science fiction, this description may actually be quite accurate for many of the planets that astronomers have found around other stars. The most successful method for detecting planets, called the "radial velocity" method, relies on detecting the small motions of stars as their planets orbit and tug them back and forth. Just as the siren on an ambulance is higher pitched when it is approaching than when it is receding, the light from a star looks slightly bluer when the star is moving toward us and slightly redder when it is moving away. Since the size of the shift depends upon the mass of the planet and how rapidly it orbits, many of the exoplanets discovered are larger than Jupiter, and orbit their star in a matter of days.
The first "hot jupiters" were a shock to the scientific community because it is thought that gas giants have to form very rapidly, before their star becomes hot enough to blow all of the primordial gas out of the system. To form so rapidly, most formation theories require the giant planets to form far enough out in the solar system for ices to be present. Too close to the sun and the only things that can clump together to form the seed for a giant planet are rocks. Farther out, beyond the so-called "snow line", ice can also clump together with the rocks, allowing the cores of giant planets to form rapidly and accumulate gas before it gets blown away.
Because ice appears to be required to form giant planets, how can they possibly form so close to their stars? The answer is: they don't! The latest research suggests that in the early days of a solar system, the planets move around quite a bit. Often, big planets toss small things like comets, asteroids, and protoplanets out of the solar system. As they fly off into interstellar space, these small pieces of debris take energy and angular momentum from the giant planet with them. The result is that giant planets tend to drift inward as they fling things outward. At the same time, if there is still gas in the system, the planet will also interact with that gas, creating waves. These waves also steal the planet's angular momentum and send it spiraling inward. In this way, a giant planet could conceivably form in the icy outer reaches of the solar system and then bully its way inward, scattering debris and making waves as it does so.
The story of hot Jupiters is a great example of science in action: giant planets were discovered a lot closer to their stars than they had any right to be, based on our understanding of planet formation. Far from weakening the theory however, the discovery of "hot jupiters" let scientists to figure out that planet migration is a very important process in the formation of a solar system. The theory emerged stronger than ever, able to explain a wider variety of potential solar systems.
So, next time you step outside, take a look at the rocks on the ground and think about a world so hot that those rocks vaporize and form clouds. And then, while you're marveling at that idea, remember that worlds like that really do exist!
"The Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." - J.B.S. Haldane
Image credit: European Space Agency, Alfred Vidal-Madjar (Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris, CNRS, France) and NASA.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
There has been a recent movement among science blogs and activists to organize a science debate for the presidential candidates. This is, in my opinion, an excellent idea. It would not have to be like a science test, nobody expects candidates to be scientists, but we should expect them to be in touch with reality, and to understand how science affects policy. As our society becomes more reliant upon technology and faces challenges in medicine, energy, defense, and the environment, a scientifically literate president is crucial. I encourage everyone to check out the official Science Debate 2008 website, and read some of the excellent blog posts, and editorials on the topic.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
In this recent "deck pan" of the Spirit rover, the solar panels are so covered in dust that they blend in almost perfectly with the surrounding dusty martian surface.
All that dust means that the rover has less power to work with every day. With martian winter approaching in a few weeks, the Rover team has been working nonstop trying to drive Spirit to a location where the solar panels will be tilted toward the sun. The rover will camp there, trying to conserve energy until spring comes and there is enough power to drive once again.
Here's hoping for a gust of wind to clean off the panels and make life a little easier for Spirit...
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Once finals are over, I will make a few honest-to-goodness posts, where I actually write a lot about something interesting. For now, enjoy this cartoon I found, and the Sagan quote that expresses the same idea but with a somewhat different tone...
"I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudo-science and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive. Where have we heard it before? Whenever our ethnic or national prejudices are aroused, in times of scarcity, during challenges to national self-esteem or nerve, when we agonize about our diminished cosmic place and purpose, or when fanaticism is bubbling up around us-then, habits of thought familiar from ages past reach for the controls.
The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir."
- Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark
Thursday, November 29, 2007
After years of studying astronomy, I am not often shocked by those "scale of the universe" demonstrations that you often see, but I just came across a really impressive one (click it to see the original page with slightly larger images):
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
So, I recently came across this article about a guy who is making cars ridiculously fuel efficient while increasing horsepower. Check it out:
Goodwin leads me over to a red 2005 H3 Hummer that's up on jacks, its mechanicals removed. He aims to use the turbine to turn the Hummer into a tricked-out electric hybrid. Like most hybrids, it'll have two engines, including an electric motor. But in this case, the second will be the turbine, Goodwin's secret ingredient. Whenever the truck's juice runs low, the turbine will roar into action for a few seconds, powering a generator with such gusto that it'll recharge a set of "supercapacitor" batteries in seconds. This means the H3's electric motor will be able to perform awesome feats of acceleration and power over and over again, like a Prius on steroids. What's more, the turbine will burn biodiesel, a renewable fuel with much lower emissions than normal diesel; a hydrogen-injection system will then cut those low emissions in half. And when it's time to fill the tank, he'll be able to just pull up to the back of a diner and dump in its excess french-fry grease--as he does with his many other Hummers. Oh, yeah, he adds, the horsepower will double--from 300 to 600.
"Conservatively," Goodwin muses, scratching his chin, "it'll get 60 miles to the gallon. With 2,000 foot-pounds of torque. You'll be able to smoke the tires. And it's going to be superefficient."
He laughs. "Think about it: a 5,000-pound vehicle that gets 60 miles to the gallon and does zero to 60 in five seconds!"
Monday, November 26, 2007
I have been a total delinquent so far when it comes to making actual blog posts. I have lots of ideas for things to post here, but I haven't had time to sit down and write them up. Maybe later this week? Maybe.
In the mean time, please enjoy this thanksgiving parody of Apollo 13. Apparently it was put together by some employees at Johnson Space Center, and rumor has it that Gene Kranz himself now shows it to his family every thanksgiving. Of course, I can't verify that, but I can guarantee that if you've seen Apollo 13, you'll enjoy this:
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
GROTHE Do you think that mass media, going that route, do you think it undercuts your science education agenda because you have to speak in sound bites, you have to reduce it down to the simplest terms for the widest appeal?
TYSON: That is an excellent question. I think what I have done--and invested a fair amount of social, cultural, and intellectual effort in-- is to recognize and understand the various parameters around the media I am using.
For example, if I am invited onto the Colbert Report or the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, I am going to study previous episodes of what the dynamics are between the host and the guest and I am going to see what kind of opportunity does the guest have to speak, how many words are likely to come out of my mouth before I am playfully interpreted ...because they are comedy shows of course.
So I will then package the message I want to deliver into the context of that program. That takes effort, I think most people don't do that and I think it makes for awkward moments.
I do that willingly because I am visiting them in their medium. If they are going to come to my college class, and they are going to listen to my one hour lecture, I am not going to sound bite it for them at that time. They are visiting me in my habitat.
The moment I go into their habitat, I owe the viewer, a delivery of content that fits that habitat. So my challenge then is how do I not compromise on either the principles or the content of science yet deliver it in a form commensurate with the comedic short form sound bite or the evening news sound bite which is a little different...
For any of us who are scientists there is always the temptation to dumb down our field to share it with someone who is uninitiated in the language, in the subject matter, the jargon...there is a strong urge to do that, but it is possible to resist that I have found.
But to resist it you have to know what is going on in the mind of the person. What are the tangled pathways that may interfere with what you are about to say? When you understand that, then you can shape your content in a way that does not dumb it down but that best intersects their capacity to receive it.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Comet Holmes, the comet that suddenly brightened by a factor of several million a few weeks ago, has now expanded to a diameter of 1.4 million kilometers. That's bigger than the sun! Of course, its nucleus is still tiny, it's the coma, the cloud of gas around the nucleus that is so huge. Check here for more information.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
I'm a sucker for pictures of the earth from space, as you may have guessed from this blog's title image. So I had to point out these awesome pictures of earth setting over the moon taken by Japan's Kaguya spacecraft. Also, last week JAXA released a sample of the first HDTV transmission from the moon, taken by the same spacecraft.
I got the heads-up on both of these press releases from the Bad Astronomy blog, one of the best science blogs out there.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Note: The following is a rant on a topic outside my area of expertise. Please correct me if I have my facts wrong!
I was riding the bus back from campus yesterday when I overheard two Cornell students in the midst of a heated discussion. Their disagreement came about because, although they were both in favor of supporting sustainability and the environment, one of them couldn't believe that the other was in favor of genetic engineering. When the other student pressed the first about what was so wrong with genetic engineering, the first student responded: "It's genetic engineering, as in, engineering genes! We're creating new genes that have never been seen in nature before!"
I have some problems with this argument. First, the visceral reaction that engineering genes is somehow forbidden territory is nonsense. We have been engineering genes for centuries. Every domesticated animal and plant has been mutated by selective breeding so that, in some cases, they scarcely resemble their original species. Take a look at a Shar Pei or a Sphynx (hairless cat) and tell me those are not the result of genetic experiments. Corn is another example: it has been bred from a wild American grass to the towering stalk with bulging ears that we are used to.
Genetic engineering is only different from selective breeding in that we have much more precise control, and that new genes can be introduced. I fail to see how introducing a gene to tomatoes that makes them resist frost, or to soybeans that prevents insects from eating them, is a bad thing. It seems like a pretty fine line to walk if making crops yield more through breeding is good, but through genetic engineering is bad.
The student's comment that we are introducing never-before-seen genes is also, as far as I know, wrong. I don't think we're at the point where a geneticists have little keyboards with the letters AGCT and they can just type out a code for a gene that does what they want. Genetic engineering is limited to taking genes from one organism and splicing them into the DNA of another organism. We're not making new genes, we're making new combinations. The same can be said for sexual reproduction.
There are some valid concerns of course, and I don't claim to be an expert on this topic. One concern is that the genetically modified species could interbreed with wild species and affect the ecosystem. This is a real risk; similar to introducing non-indigenous species, a genetically modified species could out-compete its rivals and mess things up. But of course, since I feel like playing devil's advocate: isn't that how evolution works? Whether the advantage comes from
a natural or lab-induced mutation, the result is the same.
There's also the question of ethics: "Is it 'right' to modify species to fit our needs?" Again I point to the precedent of thousands of years of breeding. If it is morally ok for us to make breeds of dogs that can barely function, I think it's ok for us to make species that have a survival advantage.
As I said, I am not an expert on this topic. If you disagree with me, that's fine. If I have my facts wrong, I encourage you to bring it to my attention! I'll edit this post or make a follow-up if I'm wrong.
Alan Stern, the Associate Administrator of NASA's Science Mission Directorate, and Jim Green, the director of NASA's Planetary Science Division, recently made a very welcome announcement to the Mars community. After a lot of work from everyone involved, the cost issues with both the descent imager MARDI and ChemCam have been resolved and the two instruments will be flying on MSL!
MARDI is a high-definition color video camera that will send back footage of MSL's landing. We will finally be able to watch a video of the landing instead of relying on telemetry to tell us what's going on and computer simulations to show what happened!
ChemCam is an instrument that sounds like it could be straight out of Star Wars. It uses a laser to vaporize a small amount of a target rock from up to 30 feet away, then analyzes the spectrum of light emitted by the superheated plasma to determine what the rock is made of. By repeatedly zapping the same place on a rock, it can blast away dust covering the surface, and even drill through thin coatings of alteration on rocks to find out how their composition changes below the surface. Finaly, since it has to have a powerful telescope to collect the plasma light, it is also able to take extremely detailed images from a distance.
It is great to hear that these instruments are both back on the mission. I'll keep you posted with other MSL developments as I hear about them.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Here's an excellent video that I found during a break in proposal writing, courtesy of the excellent blog Pharyngula. It takes an argument that is commonly used to support intelligent design and turns it around to support evolution instead!
In the spirit of Halloween, NASA created this page where you can listen to audio representations of data from various solar system missions. Some of them, particularly Saturn's aurora, really do sound like they belong on a haunted house's playlist:
Sunday, October 28, 2007
On November 6 I will be taking my Qualifying exam, and my proposal for the NSF fellowship is also due, so for the next week or so, I won't be able to make any very long posts.
In the meantime, check out this YouTube video of James Blunt singing on Sesame Street, brought to my attention by Inkycircus.
If only more celebrities went out of their way to educate children about geometry... if nothing else, the world would be a much more hilarious place.
Friday, October 26, 2007
What a day!
We began with a series of highly anticipated presentations about potential landing sites with evidence for salts, sulfates and clays – all types of minerals typically formed in water-rich environments that are favorable in terms of habitability.
The first presentation was on some new, unusual sites with strange, featureless spectra. Normally a featureless spectrum is nothing to base a landing site on, but some subtleties in the slope of the spectrum implied that it may be due to chlorides (such as sodium chloride – salt). When combined with the fact that many of these potential chloride sites appear at the bottom of basins, and that salt is excellent at preserving biological signatures within microscopic fluid inclusions in the crystals, and these new sites got quite a lot of attention.
Next came two presentations on a region called Mawrth Vallis. This region is carved by a huge channel, with lots of light-toned layers, and shows very strong evidence for clay minerals in those layers. Some of the potential landing sites were directly on the strongest clay signals, but looked like very rough and nasty places to land. Another potential site aimed for a much safer but less-interesting location – it would require some driving to get to the high-clay areas, but not too much.
Finally we heard a very compelling case for landing in a trough in Nili Fossae. This is another location with extremely strong evidence for clays, and they appear to be eroding from the walls of the canyon, implying that the rover would be able to investigate the clays where they formed and not just clay sediment that has been washed to the site from somewhere else. If that’s not enough, there is also ejecta from a nearby crater that contains clay minerals. Also, right in the landing ellipse there is a contact between the two earliest eras of martian history, so the rover could study what happened to cause the change. And wait, it gets better! The landscape just outside the landing ellipse is steep canyon ways and eroded mesas – they were compared to
With that, the presentations of potential sites were finished, and we began the painful process of trimming down the list. Throughout the three days of presentations, we assigned the sites values of red, yellow, and green in four scientific categories. Compiling those results, about 11 sites seemed to stand out above the rest. These included a wide variety: ancient river deltas, craters with layered rocks, potential hot springs, the safe (but interesting) meridiani plains, and of course, the sites with strong mineral evidence for past habitability.
Once the discussion period began, the meeting became (if possible) even more interesting, but also very chaotic. Sites with high “scientific risk” were gradually removed from the list: we don’t want to land somewhere without several lines of evidence that the site would answer our questions about the past habitability of mars. This placed the chloride sites and the potential
Melas Chasma, a site that was universally agreed to be fascinating, was eliminated because there was no way it could satisfy the engineering constraints. It required placing the ellipse in a small flat area on the edge of Valles Marineris, and with the new ellipse size (25 or 30 km diameter, rather than the original 20 km) there was no way to land safely.
We also heard some bad news from the engineers who model the winds on Mars. It turns out that the Nili Fossae trough, and two other high-ranked sites nearby, are in places with very high wind shear, which makes landing safely difficult. After some discussion, we put it to a vote, and decided that the science in Nili Fossae was just too compelling: “Damn the winds, full speed ahead!”
The final, longest discussion involved the interplay of a number of engineering and science factors. I will try to sum them up here: First, in choosing a landing site, we are restricted to latitude bands: if we choose a site in the south as the primary site, we have to choose a backup “safe” site that is also roughly in the south. Unfortunately, although the sites in the southern hemisphere are at low elevation (which helps when landing), most of them were not good “safe haven” candidates. Another problem was that they are all in the south, and it would be winter when the rover landed. Due to some trouble with the actuators, it is likely that the robotic arm and maybe even the wheels and camera mast, would be unable to move until spring or summer – so to land in the south might mean sitting dormant on the surface until it warms up, and even then only operating for half the year and going dormant for the other half. This sounds pretty bad, but the southern sites also happen to be the ones that show preserved river deltas and other extremely good evidence of long-standing water. The question was, are we willing to sacrifice operational time for the possibility of studying a location where we have excellent mineralogical and morphological evidence for standing water?
After a very long and painful discussion, in which at one point we were one vote away from eliminating the southern sites, we got two new pieces of information. The engineers and mission managers actually suggested that we keep some southern sites – if we don’t try, we don’t know how well we can make the rover work at such cold temperatures. They also told us that it is possible (though difficult) to choose a primary site in the south, and a safe-haven in the north (or vice-versa). With this information, we voted overwhelmingly to keep the southern sites on the table, with the understanding that if they were totally impossible, we still have some northern sites, as well as some sites in purgatory if all else fails.
Finally, we had to decide which northern sites to cull. After hearing the pros and cons of each site, we voted and decided to eliminate the
Nili Fossae –Pro: loads of clays eroding from the walls, monument valley, geologic contact between two eras; Con: Dangerous winds, most of the interesting stuff outside of the landing ellipse
Mawrth Vallis – Pro: Loads of clays, layered deposits, huge water-carved channel; Con: rugged terrain, or would land and have to drive to clays
Jezero crater lake - Pro: lots of clays, evidence for meandering streams, low elevation; Con: Need to drive to the clays, rocky
Edit: I originally had said that NE Syrtis Major made the cut, but that's not true... the debate toward the end was interesting enough that my notes got sketchy. Oops!
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Today was a marathon of landing site presentations, ranging all over the martian globe, and targeting just about every potentially water-related feature on mars. The day began with a continuation of the topic from yesterday: layered craters. Geologists love looking at layers because, like the pages in a history book, we can read them and learn about the planet's past. It gets tricky though, because layers can form as sediment settles out of a lake (good for life), but layers can also form in volcanic eruptions (not so good for life). The more compelling arguments for past habitability come from sites that have layers that coincide with evidence for water-bearing minerals.
After hearing about layered craters, we moved on to a set of presentations about sites in and around Meridiani Planum. Although this is the same region where the Opportunity rover is right now, saying that we shouldn't go back to Meridiani because we've "been there" is like saying that you've seen all of Europe after visiting Paris. Paris is nice, and has a lot to see, but Europe is a big, varied place. Meridiani has some great advantages: it has a lot of evidence for water-bearing minerals (clays and sulfates), it has lots of layered rocks exposed by erosion, and there are a lot of flat, safe-looking locations.
Of the sites in Meridiani, one in the eastern part of the region really stood out to me. It would land in the area of Meridiani with the largest amount of hydrated minerals as seen from orbit, in a very safe area, right on top of a huge stack of layers. Plus it is one of the only places on the planet where clay and sulfate minerals appear to be very close to each other. One of the new theories about the history of Mars is that clays formed when the planet was wet and habitable, and sulfates formed as it was drying out and getting less hospitable. We really want to find out what caused the change between the clay-dominated era and the sulfate-dominated era, so landing at a site that has some of both could help us figure that out.
After the Meridiani sites, there were a bunch of presentations proposing sites that would land in various parts of the gigantic canyon on Mars, Valles Marineris. If you placed it on Earth, Valles Marineris would stretch from California to New York, and its walls are nearly as tall as Mt. Everest. On the one hand, that makes it a really fascinating place to study, but that also makes it very difficult to find a safe place to land. I suspect that most of today's discussion about these sites was an intellectual exercise - the sites are excellent places to go, but will almost all require a mission with pinpoint accuracy when it comes to landing there safely.
The final round of sites proposed today was a grab-bag. A couple of the presenters took a shot-gun approach and talked about three or four sites in one presentation. This made it difficult to really assess whether the sites would be good places to land, because there was less detail about each individual site. In general, those sites didn't do well in the voting. Other presentations toward the end of the day talked about so-called "chaos" regions, where the ground has collapsed as vast amounts of subterranean water burst out and formed massive outflow channels. Still others proposed landing in the outflow channels themselves, or in locations where volcanic and water-formed rocks meet.
All in all it was a day full of really fascinating presentations. It was interesting to see the different degrees of candor in people's presentations. Some tended to gloss over the ambiguities in their proposed site, hoping to convince everyone that a water-related origin is the only explanation. Other presentations were brutally honest about their viability as a site, and in fact served more as public service announcements, reminding us of things to keep in mind when evaluating other sites. Of the sites discussed, some were clearly better than others, but I wouldn't say that there are any that I can say are sure to be among the finalists. I think that the group is doing a good job of asking the hard questions and really searching for sites that have multiple lines of evidence that point to past habitable conditions. Tomorrow should be very interesting as we hear about the rest of the proposed sites, and then go about the painful business of narrowing down to five top choices.
Today was the first day of the 2nd Mars Science Laboratory landing site workshop in Pasadena. We began bright and early by cramming into the conference room and reviewing the goals of the mission, the goals of the meeting, and some of the constraints that we need to keep in mind as we decide on a landing site.
The mission science goals are to assess the past and present habitability of Mars by studying the geology and geochemistry of the landing site, searching for signs of biology (past or present), seek evidence of processes that influence the habitability, and study the current radiation environment. To do this, MSL has a pretty impressive suite of instruments, described here.
The goal of this meeting is to get the community together to narrow down the more than 50 potential landing sites to about 5, including a "safe haven" site and an "uber safe haven" site. There are some pretty strict engineering guidelines that must be followed, such as avoiding sites with steep slopes, lots of rocks, or at high elevations. In addition, we ideally want the sites selected to be scientifically interesting.
After hearing from the engineers this morning, we heard from representatives of some of the major data sets, including HiRISE (high resolution imaging), OMEGA (mineralogy), and CRISM (better resolution mineralogy). There was a lot of discussion of what certain minerals mean for the past habitability of Mars, and it looks like clay minerals, which generally form in water-rich environments, are pretty good at preserving evidence of life. This is because clay mineral crystals form thin sheets, which can sandwich organic molecules between them.
In the afternoon, we began to hear from some of the proposed sites, grouped roughly by category. Today's category was "layered deposits in craters", and there were five very interesting sites proposed. All of the sites had some form of evidence suggesting that the crater may have been filled with water at some point. Most compelling were a couple of craters that have the remains of river deltas clearly exposed. River deltas only form when a fast-moving stream encounters a slow moving body of water and drops its sediment, and they imply long-term stable water, which is obviously good for habitability.
We finished off the day by attempting to rank the sites in terms of how well we think we know their geologic context, their potential as past habitable environments, their potential for preserving evidence of habitability and how well the MSL instruments can asses the habitability. This was a pretty difficult process, because we were only allowed to rank each site as "red", "yellow", or "green" in each category. In most cases, this was a very ambiguous decision, and we literally went around the room and took a show of hands.
It was a very full day, and the next two days should be even busier. I'm looking forward to seeing where this process leads us at the end of the day on Thursday.
For another (less rambling) perspective on the meeting, check Emily Lakdawalla's posts at the planetary society blog.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Last week, the Pentagon issued a report urging research into space-based solar power. I sincerely hope that they follow through with this: space-based solar power could solve our energy problems forever while simultaneously providing the much-needed economic justification for space exploration.
Space-based solar power works by placing satellites with huge solar arrays into geosynchronous orbit, so that they orbit once every 24 hours, thereby staying fixed over a certain point on Earth. Unlike the space station, which orbits the earth at an altitude of about 320 km, a satellite in geosynchronous orbit is very high (about 35,786 km above the earth's surface). That means that instead of being plunged into darkness every 90 minutes like the space station, a satellite in geosynchronous orbit is constantly illuminated by the sun. This is obviously an advantage over earth-based solar power, which has to contend with pesky things like nighttime and weather.
Like giant space-faring sunflowers, the solar power satellites would constantly face the sun, collecting millions or billions of watts of power (depending on the size of the satellite). The satellite would then beam the energy down to earth in the form of harmless microwaves (similar to those emitted by cell phones), which could be received by arrays of antennas and converted directly to electricity. The energy produce by space-based solar power would be clean, unlimited, and available anywhere at any time.
Compare this with the polluting, limited supply of oil that we must buy for ever-increasing prices from unstable parts of the world. Add on the fact that you could conceivably use space-based solar power to beam energy directly to military forces in the field, and you can see why the Pentagon is interested.
There are some difficulties: particularly that access to space is not cheap. However, I think that once space-based solar power is demonstrated to actually work, there will be more interest from energy companies. With more interest, come more launches, and more launches means cheaper launches. Once launches are cheaper, it will open the floodgates to space access. As the Pentagon report says: "Solving these space access and operations challenges for SBSP will in turn also open space for a host of other activities that include space tourism, manufacturing, lunar or asteroid resource utilization, and eventually settlement to extend the human race."
I may be overly optimistic, but I think that if space-based solar power really takes off, it could be a major turning point for humanity. Unlimited clean energy will allow us to do amazing things on Earth, and cheap access to space will allow space exploration like we've never seen before.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
My goal for this blog is to create a place where the latest science news is not only available, but understandable, accessible and exciting. My training is in the physical sciences, so I will likely write more about astronomy than biology and more about earth science than social science. But, at the same time, this is a blog and not a peer-reviewed journal, so you can expect me to stray from my areas of expertise from time to time as my interests wander. Not all posts will be about science either: if current events, politics, philosophy, or anything else catches my interest, it may appear here.
The blog's title comes from a Carl Sagan quote. This quote resonates with me and I believe that scientific literacy and the critical thinking that comes with it, are the key to achieving the "Inescapable Perspective" that Sagan describes.
"In our tenure on this planet we have accumulated dangerous evolutionary baggage, hereditary propensities for aggression and ritual, submission to leaders and hostility to outsiders, which place our survival in some question. But we have also acquired compassion for others, love for our children and our children's children, a desire to learn from history, and a great soaring passionate intelligence--the clear tools for our continued survival and prosperity. Which aspects of our nature will prevail is uncertain, particularly when our vision and understanding and prospects are bound exclusively to the Earth--or, worse, to one small part of it. But up there in the immensity of the Cosmos, an inescapable perspective awaits us." --Carl Sagan, Cosmos