Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Monday, November 29, 2010
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Friday, November 26, 2010
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Monday, November 22, 2010
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Scientist: Spirit Mars Rover May Have Died - ScienceInsider
Scientist: Spirit Mars Rover May Have Died - ScienceInsider
Scientist: Spirit Mars Rover May Have Died
by Richard A. Kerr on 12 November 2010, 3:09 PM | Permanent Link | 3 Comments
Email Print| More
PREVIOUS ARTICLE NEXT ARTICLE
Mired in dry quicksand, chilled to the bone by the martian winter, and silenced by its feeble wintertime supply of solar power, the Spirit rover should have, with luck, beamed its first radio message since 22 March back to Earth as spring breaks out. No such luck.
On 20 September, Mars rover team leader Steven Squyres of Cornell University said, "I firmly believe that in the next 4 to 6 weeks, we're going to hear from that vehicle." That was 8 weeks ago. And the weekly rover update has long included a comforting line about how the ascending springtime sun could be recharging Spirit's depleted batteries, producing an "increasing likelihood of hearing from Spirit in the period ahead." This week that line was dropped.
"There's a good possibility it died, and we'll never hear from it again," Squyres now says. Guaranteed 90 days of roving, Spirit spent 6 years roaming giant Gusev crater analyzing rocks and soil. Its early days were a bit of a bust, having targeted a lakebed that turned out to be a boring lava plain. But its long life let it rove into nearby hills where it discovered long-sought rocks rotted by martian water and even a long-dead Yellowstone-like fumarole.
But hope springs eternal when it comes to expensive NASA planetary missions. Squyres points to a plausible sort of rover failure that could be delaying the rover's awakening from its protective hibernation. With slowly increasing sunlight and a fortuitous wind to blow dust off the solar panels, Spirit might still pipe up, he says. "So we listen, [but] it could be a long wait."
If the mission has finally ended, NASA could save upward of $10 million a year in operating costs on the $470 million mission.
Scientist: Spirit Mars Rover May Have Died
by Richard A. Kerr on 12 November 2010, 3:09 PM | Permanent Link | 3 Comments
Email Print| More
PREVIOUS ARTICLE NEXT ARTICLE
Mired in dry quicksand, chilled to the bone by the martian winter, and silenced by its feeble wintertime supply of solar power, the Spirit rover should have, with luck, beamed its first radio message since 22 March back to Earth as spring breaks out. No such luck.
On 20 September, Mars rover team leader Steven Squyres of Cornell University said, "I firmly believe that in the next 4 to 6 weeks, we're going to hear from that vehicle." That was 8 weeks ago. And the weekly rover update has long included a comforting line about how the ascending springtime sun could be recharging Spirit's depleted batteries, producing an "increasing likelihood of hearing from Spirit in the period ahead." This week that line was dropped.
"There's a good possibility it died, and we'll never hear from it again," Squyres now says. Guaranteed 90 days of roving, Spirit spent 6 years roaming giant Gusev crater analyzing rocks and soil. Its early days were a bit of a bust, having targeted a lakebed that turned out to be a boring lava plain. But its long life let it rove into nearby hills where it discovered long-sought rocks rotted by martian water and even a long-dead Yellowstone-like fumarole.
But hope springs eternal when it comes to expensive NASA planetary missions. Squyres points to a plausible sort of rover failure that could be delaying the rover's awakening from its protective hibernation. With slowly increasing sunlight and a fortuitous wind to blow dust off the solar panels, Spirit might still pipe up, he says. "So we listen, [but] it could be a long wait."
If the mission has finally ended, NASA could save upward of $10 million a year in operating costs on the $470 million mission.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Hubble Telescope Replacement Having Outlandish Cost Over Runs
NASA: James Webb Space Telescope Costs Becoming Astronomical
SETH BORENSTEIN | 11/10/10 06:47 PM |
WASHINGTON — The cost of NASA's replacement for the Hubble Space Telescope is giving new meaning to the word astronomical, growing another $1.5 billion, according to a new internal NASA study released Wednesday.
NASA's explanation: We're better rocket scientists than accountants. Management and others didn't notice that key costs for the James Webb Space Telescope weren't included during a major program review in July 2008, officials said.
The study says in the best case scenario it will now cost about $6.5 billion to launch and run the powerful, new telescope. And that can happen only if NASA adds an extra $500 million in the next two years over current budget plans. If the agency can't get the extra money from Congress, it will ultimately cost even more and take longer to launch the telescope.
Before now, the cost of the telescope had already ballooned from $3.5 billion to $5 billion.
NASA officials said they had not done a good job of figuring out the confirmation cost for the massive telescope. The report said the budget in 2008 "understated the real requirements" and managers didn't realize how inadequate it was.
"We were missing a certain fraction of what was going on," NASA associate administrator Chris Scolese said in a late Wednesday afternoon teleconference.
The Webb telescope, "we hope is just an aberration," Scolese said, but suggested there may be other budget-busting projects. He said the agency is now reviewing all its projects, not just to find extra money for Webb but to see if there are similar cases of poor budgeting.
The costs aren't because of problems with the technology, design or construction of the instrument. NASA said, technically, it is in good shape. It is designed to look deeper in the universe to the first galaxies. A collaboration with the European Space Agency, the telescope is being built by Northrop Grumman and will be run out of Baltimore, Md., like Hubble.
The fault "lies with us, no question about it," Scolese said.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Webb telescope is already late. When first announced more than a dozen years ago, it was supposed to launch in 2007. That was eventually delayed until 2014. The new report, issued at the request of the Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., says the earliest launch date now would be September 2015.
Scolese said technically the telescope was not confirmed as a project until 2008 – even though many millions of dollars had been spent on it and NASA had been promoting it since 1998. In 2008, NASA said it would cost $5 billion and that's the number to use for how overbudget it is, Scolese said. But previous numbers that NASA provided said it would cost $3.5 billion.
This follows the well-worn path of the Hubble telescope. In current dollars, it cost NASA $4.7 billion to build and launch Hubble and then another $1.1 billion to fix it in orbit.
Astronomer Garth Illingworth, a professor at University of California Santa Cruz and a member of the internal study team, said Webb will be worth the money.
He said the Webb "is hugely more powerful than Hubble, 100 times more powerful at least."
___
Online:
SETH BORENSTEIN | 11/10/10 06:47 PM |
WASHINGTON — The cost of NASA's replacement for the Hubble Space Telescope is giving new meaning to the word astronomical, growing another $1.5 billion, according to a new internal NASA study released Wednesday.
NASA's explanation: We're better rocket scientists than accountants. Management and others didn't notice that key costs for the James Webb Space Telescope weren't included during a major program review in July 2008, officials said.
The study says in the best case scenario it will now cost about $6.5 billion to launch and run the powerful, new telescope. And that can happen only if NASA adds an extra $500 million in the next two years over current budget plans. If the agency can't get the extra money from Congress, it will ultimately cost even more and take longer to launch the telescope.
Before now, the cost of the telescope had already ballooned from $3.5 billion to $5 billion.
NASA officials said they had not done a good job of figuring out the confirmation cost for the massive telescope. The report said the budget in 2008 "understated the real requirements" and managers didn't realize how inadequate it was.
"We were missing a certain fraction of what was going on," NASA associate administrator Chris Scolese said in a late Wednesday afternoon teleconference.
The Webb telescope, "we hope is just an aberration," Scolese said, but suggested there may be other budget-busting projects. He said the agency is now reviewing all its projects, not just to find extra money for Webb but to see if there are similar cases of poor budgeting.
The costs aren't because of problems with the technology, design or construction of the instrument. NASA said, technically, it is in good shape. It is designed to look deeper in the universe to the first galaxies. A collaboration with the European Space Agency, the telescope is being built by Northrop Grumman and will be run out of Baltimore, Md., like Hubble.
The fault "lies with us, no question about it," Scolese said.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Webb telescope is already late. When first announced more than a dozen years ago, it was supposed to launch in 2007. That was eventually delayed until 2014. The new report, issued at the request of the Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., says the earliest launch date now would be September 2015.
Scolese said technically the telescope was not confirmed as a project until 2008 – even though many millions of dollars had been spent on it and NASA had been promoting it since 1998. In 2008, NASA said it would cost $5 billion and that's the number to use for how overbudget it is, Scolese said. But previous numbers that NASA provided said it would cost $3.5 billion.
This follows the well-worn path of the Hubble telescope. In current dollars, it cost NASA $4.7 billion to build and launch Hubble and then another $1.1 billion to fix it in orbit.
Astronomer Garth Illingworth, a professor at University of California Santa Cruz and a member of the internal study team, said Webb will be worth the money.
He said the Webb "is hugely more powerful than Hubble, 100 times more powerful at least."
___
Online:
A Strategy To Search For ife On Mars
A Strategy to Search for Life on Mars
Mars
Posted: 11/11/10
Author: Charles Q. Choi
Summary: One of the reasons NASA sends so many missions to Mars is because of the planet’s potential for life. Current missions search for factors thought to be necessary for life, such as liquid water and organic molecules, but some scientists now say the search for life itself should be the highest priority for the next decade of Mars robotic probes.
This is the first photograph ever taken on the surface of the planet Mars. It was obtained by Viking 1 just minutes after the spacecraft landed. The Viking mission’s Labeled Release Experiment was specifically designed to test for the presence of microbes on Mars. Credit: NASA
The first and only attempts to search for life on Mars were the Viking missions launched in 1975. Now scientists are suggesting the next decade of robotic probes sent to the red planet should make the search for life the highest priority.
After the Viking missions, the general consensus was that cold, radiation, hyper-aridity and other environmental factors ruled out the chances for microbial activity on or near the surface of Mars. This assumption — based largely on how Viking’s instruments did not detect organic compounds that would have indicated martian life — has been reinforced by each follow-up mission since then.
The Mars Science Laboratory, scheduled for launch in 2011, is dedicated to searching for evidence that the martian environment was once capable of supporting life on the red planet. However, some scientists argue the strategy for Mars exploration should center on the search for life itself – “extant” life that is either active today or is dormant but still alive.
The Mars Phoenix mission dug into the soil of Mars to see what might be hidden just beneath the surface. Samples from this trench were delivered to the Wet Chemistry Laboratory, which was part of Phoenix's Microscopy, Electrochemistry, and Conductivity Analyzer (MECA). Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Arizona/Texas A&M University
"There is no human task more significant and profound than testing if we are alone or not in the universe, and Mars must be the first place to look, as it is just facing our front yard," said astrobiologist Alberto Fairen at the SETI Institute and NASA Ames Research Center. "Finding life on Mars would be the most important scientific achievement of this century."
The Viking landers had detected organic molecules such as methyl chloride and dichloromethane, but these had been dismissed as terrestrial contamination – namely, cleaning fluids used to prepare the spacecraft when it was still on Earth.
The Phoenix lander spotted magnesium perchlorate in the soils, which can destroy organic residues. This discovery has caused scientists to rethink the Viking assumptions. Because Viking heated its samples, it could have caused a chemical reaction between perchlorate and any organics present, thereby destroying the organics.
The recent detection of methane on Mars has also revived the possibility of past or even extant life just below the surface, since life is one of the primary producers of methane on Earth.
As hostile as Mars might be for life, numerous examples exist of life surviving in extreme environments on Earth. For instance, microbes are seen in cold, dry soils of the Antarctic Dry Valleys. These soils are arranged into a layer of dry permafrost overlying ground ice, a structure similar to some soils on Mars. Debris-rich ice layers in glaciers trap water films and mineral dust that can serve as a basis for life on Earth, and similar layers are seen at Mars' northern polar deposits.
A number of studies suggest the lowlands of Mars's northern hemisphere were once covered in water. A possible shoreline near the giant volcano Olympus Mons was photographed in detail by the Viking spacecraft and by the Mars Orbiter Camera. Credit: NASA
Microbes even live in salt knobs in the hyper-arid Atacama Desert in Chile, which is often described as similar to martian soils.
These analogs of Mars on Earth suggest there are relatively few areas on Mars that could support life: ice-cemented ground, massive ice deposits and certain porous salts.
"Probes have been sent to regions of Mars where ice-cemented ground is common — this was the case of Phoenix, in the northern plains," Fairen said. "Other environments, such as hundreds of regional accumulations of chloride salts, have been discovered very recently, only three years ago, and are dispersed on the ancient southern highlands. In any case, there have been no attempts to analyze any of these environments with modern biological instruments to search for life, extant or extinct."
Fairen and his colleagues recommend a new strategy for the next decade of robotic investigations on Mars, one in which the search for extant life is the first priority.
Comparison of Mars Science Laboratory and Mars Exploration Rover. The Mini Cooper-sized MSL rover is twice as long (about 2.8 meters, or 9 feet) and four times as heavy as the Spirit and Opportunity rovers. Credit: NASA
"We call for a long-term architecture of the Mars Exploration Program that is organized around three main goals in the following order of priority — the search for extant life, the search for past life, and sample return," Fairen said.
The researchers envision probes targeting the kinds of areas where life might be found, and carrying instruments that can provide indisputable evidence – such as actual microbes -- for the presence or absence of life. Robotic missions in search of spores, dormant life or organic remains could, for instance, drill a few yards down to reach ice-rich layers shielded from the high levels of radiation at the surface and use microscopes to examine their finds.
A mission aimed at looking for extant life would also be ideal for finding any extinct life, since dead organisms likely would be found in the same places as live ones would. Since soil bacteria in the Atacama Desert are spread out in a patchy manner, any new missions to search for life on Mars should incorporate a rover. Landers should also be used to return samples, if at all possible.
"The technology is ready," Fairen said. "We only need a new impulse and more ambition."
The scientists detailed their strategy online Oct. 7 in the journal Astrobiology.
Mars
Posted: 11/11/10
Author: Charles Q. Choi
Summary: One of the reasons NASA sends so many missions to Mars is because of the planet’s potential for life. Current missions search for factors thought to be necessary for life, such as liquid water and organic molecules, but some scientists now say the search for life itself should be the highest priority for the next decade of Mars robotic probes.
This is the first photograph ever taken on the surface of the planet Mars. It was obtained by Viking 1 just minutes after the spacecraft landed. The Viking mission’s Labeled Release Experiment was specifically designed to test for the presence of microbes on Mars. Credit: NASA
The first and only attempts to search for life on Mars were the Viking missions launched in 1975. Now scientists are suggesting the next decade of robotic probes sent to the red planet should make the search for life the highest priority.
After the Viking missions, the general consensus was that cold, radiation, hyper-aridity and other environmental factors ruled out the chances for microbial activity on or near the surface of Mars. This assumption — based largely on how Viking’s instruments did not detect organic compounds that would have indicated martian life — has been reinforced by each follow-up mission since then.
The Mars Science Laboratory, scheduled for launch in 2011, is dedicated to searching for evidence that the martian environment was once capable of supporting life on the red planet. However, some scientists argue the strategy for Mars exploration should center on the search for life itself – “extant” life that is either active today or is dormant but still alive.
The Mars Phoenix mission dug into the soil of Mars to see what might be hidden just beneath the surface. Samples from this trench were delivered to the Wet Chemistry Laboratory, which was part of Phoenix's Microscopy, Electrochemistry, and Conductivity Analyzer (MECA). Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Arizona/Texas A&M University
"There is no human task more significant and profound than testing if we are alone or not in the universe, and Mars must be the first place to look, as it is just facing our front yard," said astrobiologist Alberto Fairen at the SETI Institute and NASA Ames Research Center. "Finding life on Mars would be the most important scientific achievement of this century."
The Viking landers had detected organic molecules such as methyl chloride and dichloromethane, but these had been dismissed as terrestrial contamination – namely, cleaning fluids used to prepare the spacecraft when it was still on Earth.
The Phoenix lander spotted magnesium perchlorate in the soils, which can destroy organic residues. This discovery has caused scientists to rethink the Viking assumptions. Because Viking heated its samples, it could have caused a chemical reaction between perchlorate and any organics present, thereby destroying the organics.
The recent detection of methane on Mars has also revived the possibility of past or even extant life just below the surface, since life is one of the primary producers of methane on Earth.
As hostile as Mars might be for life, numerous examples exist of life surviving in extreme environments on Earth. For instance, microbes are seen in cold, dry soils of the Antarctic Dry Valleys. These soils are arranged into a layer of dry permafrost overlying ground ice, a structure similar to some soils on Mars. Debris-rich ice layers in glaciers trap water films and mineral dust that can serve as a basis for life on Earth, and similar layers are seen at Mars' northern polar deposits.
A number of studies suggest the lowlands of Mars's northern hemisphere were once covered in water. A possible shoreline near the giant volcano Olympus Mons was photographed in detail by the Viking spacecraft and by the Mars Orbiter Camera. Credit: NASA
Microbes even live in salt knobs in the hyper-arid Atacama Desert in Chile, which is often described as similar to martian soils.
These analogs of Mars on Earth suggest there are relatively few areas on Mars that could support life: ice-cemented ground, massive ice deposits and certain porous salts.
"Probes have been sent to regions of Mars where ice-cemented ground is common — this was the case of Phoenix, in the northern plains," Fairen said. "Other environments, such as hundreds of regional accumulations of chloride salts, have been discovered very recently, only three years ago, and are dispersed on the ancient southern highlands. In any case, there have been no attempts to analyze any of these environments with modern biological instruments to search for life, extant or extinct."
Fairen and his colleagues recommend a new strategy for the next decade of robotic investigations on Mars, one in which the search for extant life is the first priority.
Comparison of Mars Science Laboratory and Mars Exploration Rover. The Mini Cooper-sized MSL rover is twice as long (about 2.8 meters, or 9 feet) and four times as heavy as the Spirit and Opportunity rovers. Credit: NASA
"We call for a long-term architecture of the Mars Exploration Program that is organized around three main goals in the following order of priority — the search for extant life, the search for past life, and sample return," Fairen said.
The researchers envision probes targeting the kinds of areas where life might be found, and carrying instruments that can provide indisputable evidence – such as actual microbes -- for the presence or absence of life. Robotic missions in search of spores, dormant life or organic remains could, for instance, drill a few yards down to reach ice-rich layers shielded from the high levels of radiation at the surface and use microscopes to examine their finds.
A mission aimed at looking for extant life would also be ideal for finding any extinct life, since dead organisms likely would be found in the same places as live ones would. Since soil bacteria in the Atacama Desert are spread out in a patchy manner, any new missions to search for life on Mars should incorporate a rover. Landers should also be used to return samples, if at all possible.
"The technology is ready," Fairen said. "We only need a new impulse and more ambition."
The scientists detailed their strategy online Oct. 7 in the journal Astrobiology.
ESA Hones Design For Mars Orbiter/Lander
ESA Hones Design For Mars Orbiter/Lander
Nov 11, 2010
By Michael A. Taverna
Prague
Engineers are moving into the last phase of detailed design for ExoMars, a twin lander/orbiter mission planned by the European Space Agency and NASA to pave the way for a sample return from the red planet.
ExoMars was conceived as an all-ESA endeavor with a single launch. However, rising costs and technology risks forced planners last year to morph the undertaking into a twin-launch scenario, with NASA as partner, and to redefine system requirements. This was completed in March. Thales Alenia Space (TAS) was retained as prime contractor.
Vincenzo Giorgio, who heads the optical observation and science business line of TAS’s Italian unit, says he expects to deliver a final proposal for Phase C/D full-scale development for the twin missions in January. Lower-level PDRs are due to be finished by March. The official development kick off is set for April, and systems are to be delivered in June 2015—a schedule that Giorgio admits is “very aggressive.”
To meet it, a protoflight model verification approach has been adopted, obviating the need for qualification or structural-thermal models, except for critical subassemblies. The flight modules will be mated at the very end of the integration and test phase, allowing their development and test schedules to be decoupled. Giorgio says 70% of procurement is complete and there are no critical fair-return issues—always a concern on ESA missions.
The first ExoMars mission, set for January 2016, will be led by ESA, which will supply the entry, descent and lander (EDL) module and orbiter. NASA will provide an orbiter communications and science package. The communications system will serve the two 2016 and 2018 missions as well as other international Martian assets.
The second mission, slated for 2018, will be NASA-run and include twin rovers, one each from the two agencies, and be carried on NASA’s Skycrane EDL. The European rover will be fully autonomous and will include a drill capable of boring down 2 meters to capture samples of the Martian subsurface—a major innovation over previous missions. The U.S. rover is still being defined.
Both will be launched by a U.S. Atlas V rocket using 4-meter-dia. fairings.
The 2016 mission is set to launch between Jan. 7-27, 2016, and perform a deep-space maneuver May 20-29. The EDL will separate from the orbiter on Oct. 16 and land on Oct. 19, touching down in the middle of the dust season—another Martian first—at a landing site in the Meridiani area, between 5 deg. S. Lat. and 35 deg. N.
The orbiter will enter its initial Martian orbit on the same day. It will employ aerobraking to reach final orbit beginning on Nov. 8 and ending on June 25, when the science phase is set to start. The 2018 rovers are due to arrive on Mars on Jan. 15, 2019.
The modified mission scenario led engineers to downsize the EDL for the 2016 flight from 1,200 kg. to 600 kg. (1,322 lb.) landing mass, reducing the size of the surface science package and emphasizing the technology demonstration. The design trade-off also led engineers to replace the vented air bag with a lighter crushable system and choose a hyperbolic entry trajectory. A material characterization test for the crushable design is to be completed by next spring and full-scale drop/impact tests are to begin in mid-2011.
TAS executives say the EDL design can be scaled up and could be employed for the 2018 mission, using the vented airbag design, in the event of a problem with the Skycrane on NASA’s 2011 Mars Science Laboratory mission.
The EDL will be powered by a battery sized to handle entry, descent and landing functions and support science operations for one sol (24 hr. 40 min. on Earth). Science will focus on atmospheric surface measurements and surface physical-chemical processes. A package of engineering instruments, including a camera, will monitor the 244-sec. descent phase and build a soft vision basis for a later Mars Sample Return landing system.
The module will feature a 2.4-meter-dia. heat shield with a MER-like aerodynamic profile and a single disk-gap-band Huygens-type parachute. The heat shield is composed of a 20-mm. honeycomb aluminum core/carbon skin frontshield and 24.2-mm. ablative norcoat liege thermal tiles, based on heritage from ESA’s Atmospheric Reentry Demonstrator and other missions. The guidance, navigation and control system, intended to control both lander orientation and touchdown velocity, will include a cluster of 400-newton hydrazine pulse-modulated thrusters designed to shut off 1.5 meters before landing, along with a radar Doppler altimeter and inertial measurement units.
The orbiter will carry five instruments—three radiometers/spectrometers and two imagers—to monitor atmospheric trace gases, in particular methane, characterize their spatial and temporal variation and localize the sources. The science mission will last one Martian year and 30 days.
NASA last month tapped Ball Aerospace for hardware for two of the instruments, a high-resolution stereo color imager and the Mars Atmosphere Trace Molecule Occultation Spectrometer.
ESA’s 2018 rover will weigh 300 kg. and be designed for a nominal mission of 180 sols (about 185 Earth days). It will be capable of traveling to a target 70 meters away within one sol.
Photo: NASA
Nov 11, 2010
By Michael A. Taverna
Prague
Engineers are moving into the last phase of detailed design for ExoMars, a twin lander/orbiter mission planned by the European Space Agency and NASA to pave the way for a sample return from the red planet.
ExoMars was conceived as an all-ESA endeavor with a single launch. However, rising costs and technology risks forced planners last year to morph the undertaking into a twin-launch scenario, with NASA as partner, and to redefine system requirements. This was completed in March. Thales Alenia Space (TAS) was retained as prime contractor.
Vincenzo Giorgio, who heads the optical observation and science business line of TAS’s Italian unit, says he expects to deliver a final proposal for Phase C/D full-scale development for the twin missions in January. Lower-level PDRs are due to be finished by March. The official development kick off is set for April, and systems are to be delivered in June 2015—a schedule that Giorgio admits is “very aggressive.”
To meet it, a protoflight model verification approach has been adopted, obviating the need for qualification or structural-thermal models, except for critical subassemblies. The flight modules will be mated at the very end of the integration and test phase, allowing their development and test schedules to be decoupled. Giorgio says 70% of procurement is complete and there are no critical fair-return issues—always a concern on ESA missions.
The first ExoMars mission, set for January 2016, will be led by ESA, which will supply the entry, descent and lander (EDL) module and orbiter. NASA will provide an orbiter communications and science package. The communications system will serve the two 2016 and 2018 missions as well as other international Martian assets.
The second mission, slated for 2018, will be NASA-run and include twin rovers, one each from the two agencies, and be carried on NASA’s Skycrane EDL. The European rover will be fully autonomous and will include a drill capable of boring down 2 meters to capture samples of the Martian subsurface—a major innovation over previous missions. The U.S. rover is still being defined.
Both will be launched by a U.S. Atlas V rocket using 4-meter-dia. fairings.
The 2016 mission is set to launch between Jan. 7-27, 2016, and perform a deep-space maneuver May 20-29. The EDL will separate from the orbiter on Oct. 16 and land on Oct. 19, touching down in the middle of the dust season—another Martian first—at a landing site in the Meridiani area, between 5 deg. S. Lat. and 35 deg. N.
The orbiter will enter its initial Martian orbit on the same day. It will employ aerobraking to reach final orbit beginning on Nov. 8 and ending on June 25, when the science phase is set to start. The 2018 rovers are due to arrive on Mars on Jan. 15, 2019.
The modified mission scenario led engineers to downsize the EDL for the 2016 flight from 1,200 kg. to 600 kg. (1,322 lb.) landing mass, reducing the size of the surface science package and emphasizing the technology demonstration. The design trade-off also led engineers to replace the vented air bag with a lighter crushable system and choose a hyperbolic entry trajectory. A material characterization test for the crushable design is to be completed by next spring and full-scale drop/impact tests are to begin in mid-2011.
TAS executives say the EDL design can be scaled up and could be employed for the 2018 mission, using the vented airbag design, in the event of a problem with the Skycrane on NASA’s 2011 Mars Science Laboratory mission.
The EDL will be powered by a battery sized to handle entry, descent and landing functions and support science operations for one sol (24 hr. 40 min. on Earth). Science will focus on atmospheric surface measurements and surface physical-chemical processes. A package of engineering instruments, including a camera, will monitor the 244-sec. descent phase and build a soft vision basis for a later Mars Sample Return landing system.
The module will feature a 2.4-meter-dia. heat shield with a MER-like aerodynamic profile and a single disk-gap-band Huygens-type parachute. The heat shield is composed of a 20-mm. honeycomb aluminum core/carbon skin frontshield and 24.2-mm. ablative norcoat liege thermal tiles, based on heritage from ESA’s Atmospheric Reentry Demonstrator and other missions. The guidance, navigation and control system, intended to control both lander orientation and touchdown velocity, will include a cluster of 400-newton hydrazine pulse-modulated thrusters designed to shut off 1.5 meters before landing, along with a radar Doppler altimeter and inertial measurement units.
The orbiter will carry five instruments—three radiometers/spectrometers and two imagers—to monitor atmospheric trace gases, in particular methane, characterize their spatial and temporal variation and localize the sources. The science mission will last one Martian year and 30 days.
NASA last month tapped Ball Aerospace for hardware for two of the instruments, a high-resolution stereo color imager and the Mars Atmosphere Trace Molecule Occultation Spectrometer.
ESA’s 2018 rover will weigh 300 kg. and be designed for a nominal mission of 180 sols (about 185 Earth days). It will be capable of traveling to a target 70 meters away within one sol.
Photo: NASA
Thursday, November 11, 2010
One Step Closer To A Manned Mars Mission-NASA Picks ContractorsTo Compete For A Heavy Lift Booster
NASA Selects Companies For Heavy-Lift Launch Vehicle Studies
File image.
by Staff Writers
Washington DC (SPX) Nov 11, 2010
NASA has selected 13 companies for negotiations leading to potential contract awards to conduct systems analysis and trade studies for evaluating heavy-lift launch vehicle system concepts, propulsion technologies, and affordability.
The selected companies are:
Aerojet General Corp., Rancho Cordova, Calif.
Analytical Mechanics Associates, Huntsville, Ala.
Andrews Space, Tukwila, Wash.
Alliant Techsystems, Huntsville, Ala.
The Boeing Co., Huntsville, Ala.
Lockheed Martin Corp., Huntsville, Ala.
Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., Huntsville, Ala.
Orbital Sciences Corp., Chandler, Ariz.
Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne, Canoga Park, Calif.
Science Applications International Corp., Huntsville, Ala.
Space Exploration Technologies Corp., Hawthorne, Calif.
United Launch Alliance, Centennial, Colo.
United Space Alliance, Huntsville, Ala.
The awards total approximately $7.5 million with a maximum individual contract award of $625,000. Each company will provide a final report to help lay the groundwork for the transportation system that could launch humans to multiple destinations, including asteroids, Lagrange points, the moon and Mars.
"These trade studies will provide a look at innovative launch vehicle concepts, propulsion technologies, and processes that should make human exploration missions more affordable," said Doug Cooke, associate administrator of NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate at the agency's Headquarters in Washington.
"If we are to travel beyond low-Earth orbit, industry's collaboration is essential to reduce the cost associated with our future exploration goals and approaches and make the heavy-lift vehicle affordable to build and fly."
The studies will include heritage systems from shuttle and Ares, as well as alternative architectures and identify propulsion technology gaps including main propulsion elements, propellant tanks and rocket health management systems.
The reports will include assessments of various heavy-lift launch vehicle and in-space vehicle that use different propulsion combinations. The companies will examine how these combinations can be employed to meet multiple mission objectives.
NASA will use the recommendations to evaluate heavy-lift launch vehicle concepts and propulsion technologies for affordability that will be required to enable robust and sustainable future exploration missions.
File image.
by Staff Writers
Washington DC (SPX) Nov 11, 2010
NASA has selected 13 companies for negotiations leading to potential contract awards to conduct systems analysis and trade studies for evaluating heavy-lift launch vehicle system concepts, propulsion technologies, and affordability.
The selected companies are:
Aerojet General Corp., Rancho Cordova, Calif.
Analytical Mechanics Associates, Huntsville, Ala.
Andrews Space, Tukwila, Wash.
Alliant Techsystems, Huntsville, Ala.
The Boeing Co., Huntsville, Ala.
Lockheed Martin Corp., Huntsville, Ala.
Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., Huntsville, Ala.
Orbital Sciences Corp., Chandler, Ariz.
Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne, Canoga Park, Calif.
Science Applications International Corp., Huntsville, Ala.
Space Exploration Technologies Corp., Hawthorne, Calif.
United Launch Alliance, Centennial, Colo.
United Space Alliance, Huntsville, Ala.
The awards total approximately $7.5 million with a maximum individual contract award of $625,000. Each company will provide a final report to help lay the groundwork for the transportation system that could launch humans to multiple destinations, including asteroids, Lagrange points, the moon and Mars.
"These trade studies will provide a look at innovative launch vehicle concepts, propulsion technologies, and processes that should make human exploration missions more affordable," said Doug Cooke, associate administrator of NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate at the agency's Headquarters in Washington.
"If we are to travel beyond low-Earth orbit, industry's collaboration is essential to reduce the cost associated with our future exploration goals and approaches and make the heavy-lift vehicle affordable to build and fly."
The studies will include heritage systems from shuttle and Ares, as well as alternative architectures and identify propulsion technology gaps including main propulsion elements, propellant tanks and rocket health management systems.
The reports will include assessments of various heavy-lift launch vehicle and in-space vehicle that use different propulsion combinations. The companies will examine how these combinations can be employed to meet multiple mission objectives.
NASA will use the recommendations to evaluate heavy-lift launch vehicle concepts and propulsion technologies for affordability that will be required to enable robust and sustainable future exploration missions.
Search For Life On Mars The Top Priority Of Robotic Explorers
Yahoo! Buzz
Search for Life on Mars a Top Priority for Robot Probes, Scientists Say
By Charles Q. Choi
Astrobiology Magazine Contributor
posted: 11 November 2010
06:11 am ET
The first and only attempts to search for life on Mars were the Viking missions launched in 1975. Now scientists are suggesting the next decade of robotic probes sent to the Red Planet should make the search for life the highest priority.
After the Viking missions, the general consensus was that cold, radiation, hyper-aridity and other environmental factors ruled out the chances for microbial activity on or near the surface of Mars. This assumption — based largely on how Viking's instruments did not detect organic compounds that would have indicated Martian life — has been reinforced by each follow-up mission since then.
The Mars Science Laboratory, scheduled for launch in 2011, is dedicated to searching for evidence that the Martian environment was once capable of supporting life on the Red Planet. However, some scientists argue the strategy for Mars exploration should center on the search for life itself – "extant" life that is either active today or is dormant but still alive.
Ads by Google Images Of Cruise ShipFind Images of Oasis of the Seas, The Largest Cruise Ship Afloat. www.Bing.com/Travel Satellite picturesFree Satellite pictures All The Time With The Maps Toolbar Maps.alot.com
"There is no human task more significant and profound than testing if we are alone or not in the universe, and Mars must be the first place to look, as it is just facing our front yard," said astrobiologist Alberto Fairen at the SETI Institute and NASA Ames Research Center. "Finding life on Mars would be the most important scientific achievement of this century."
NASA's Viking vanguard
The Viking landers had detected organic molecules such as methyl chloride and dichloromethane, but these had been dismissed as terrestrial contamination – namely, cleaning fluids used to prepare the spacecraft when it was still on Earth. [Gallery: Viking Missions to Mars]
The Phoenix lander spotted magnesium perchlorate in the soils, which can destroy organic residues. This discovery has caused scientists to rethink the Viking assumptions. Because Viking heated its samples, it could have caused a chemical reaction between perchlorate and any organics present, thereby destroying the organics.
The recent detection of methane on Mars has also revived the possibility of past or even extant life just below the surface, since life is one of the primary producers of methane on Earth.
As hostile as Mars might be for life, numerous examples exist of life surviving in extreme environments on Earth. For instance, microbes are seen in cold, dry soils of the Antarctic Dry Valleys. These soils are arranged into a layer of dry permafrost overlying ground ice, a structure similar to some soils on Mars. Debris-rich ice layers in glaciers trap water films and mineral dust that can serve as a basis for life on Earth, and similar layers are seen at Mars' northern polar deposits.
Microbes even live in salt knobs in the hyper-arid Atacama Desert in Chile, which is often described as similar to Martian soils.
These analogs of Mars on Earth suggest there are relatively few areas on Mars that could support life — ice-cemented ground, massive ice deposits and certain porous salts.
"Probes have been sent to regions of Mars where ice-cemented ground is common — this was the case of Phoenix, in the northern plains," Fairen said. "Other environments, such as hundreds of regional accumulations of chloride salts, have been discovered very recently, only three years ago, and are dispersed on the ancient southern highlands. In any case, there have been no attempts to analyze any of these environments with modern biological instruments to search for life, extant or extinct."
Robot invasion of Mars
Fairen and his colleagues recommend a new strategy for the next decade of robotic investigations on Mars, one in which the search for extant life is the first priority.
"We call for a long-term architecture of the Mars Exploration Program that is organized around three main goals in the following order of priority — the search for extant life, the search for past life, and sample return," Fairen said.
The researchers envision probes targeting the kinds of areas where life might be found, and carrying instruments that can provide indisputable evidence – such as actual microbes – for the presence or absence of life. Robotic missions in search of spores, dormant life or organic remains could, for instance, drill a few yards down to reach ice-rich layers shielded from the high levels of radiation at the surface and use microscopes to examine their finds.
A mission aimed at looking for extant life would also be ideal for finding any extinct life, since dead organisms likely would be found in the same places as live ones would. Since soil bacteria in the Atacama Desert are spread out in a patchy manner, any new missions to search for life on Mars should incorporate a rover. Landers should also be used to return samples, if at all possible.
"The technology is ready," Fairen said. "We only need a new impulse and more ambition."
The scientists detailed their strategy online Oct. 7 in the journal Astrobiology.
Photos: Viking Missions to Mars, Mars Rover Discoveries
Bringing a Bit of Mars Back Home
Meteorite-Based Debate Over Martian Life Is Far from Over
Search for Life on Mars a Top Priority for Robot Probes, Scientists Say
By Charles Q. Choi
Astrobiology Magazine Contributor
posted: 11 November 2010
06:11 am ET
The first and only attempts to search for life on Mars were the Viking missions launched in 1975. Now scientists are suggesting the next decade of robotic probes sent to the Red Planet should make the search for life the highest priority.
After the Viking missions, the general consensus was that cold, radiation, hyper-aridity and other environmental factors ruled out the chances for microbial activity on or near the surface of Mars. This assumption — based largely on how Viking's instruments did not detect organic compounds that would have indicated Martian life — has been reinforced by each follow-up mission since then.
The Mars Science Laboratory, scheduled for launch in 2011, is dedicated to searching for evidence that the Martian environment was once capable of supporting life on the Red Planet. However, some scientists argue the strategy for Mars exploration should center on the search for life itself – "extant" life that is either active today or is dormant but still alive.
Ads by Google Images Of Cruise ShipFind Images of Oasis of the Seas, The Largest Cruise Ship Afloat. www.Bing.com/Travel Satellite picturesFree Satellite pictures All The Time With The Maps Toolbar Maps.alot.com
"There is no human task more significant and profound than testing if we are alone or not in the universe, and Mars must be the first place to look, as it is just facing our front yard," said astrobiologist Alberto Fairen at the SETI Institute and NASA Ames Research Center. "Finding life on Mars would be the most important scientific achievement of this century."
NASA's Viking vanguard
The Viking landers had detected organic molecules such as methyl chloride and dichloromethane, but these had been dismissed as terrestrial contamination – namely, cleaning fluids used to prepare the spacecraft when it was still on Earth. [Gallery: Viking Missions to Mars]
The Phoenix lander spotted magnesium perchlorate in the soils, which can destroy organic residues. This discovery has caused scientists to rethink the Viking assumptions. Because Viking heated its samples, it could have caused a chemical reaction between perchlorate and any organics present, thereby destroying the organics.
The recent detection of methane on Mars has also revived the possibility of past or even extant life just below the surface, since life is one of the primary producers of methane on Earth.
As hostile as Mars might be for life, numerous examples exist of life surviving in extreme environments on Earth. For instance, microbes are seen in cold, dry soils of the Antarctic Dry Valleys. These soils are arranged into a layer of dry permafrost overlying ground ice, a structure similar to some soils on Mars. Debris-rich ice layers in glaciers trap water films and mineral dust that can serve as a basis for life on Earth, and similar layers are seen at Mars' northern polar deposits.
Microbes even live in salt knobs in the hyper-arid Atacama Desert in Chile, which is often described as similar to Martian soils.
These analogs of Mars on Earth suggest there are relatively few areas on Mars that could support life — ice-cemented ground, massive ice deposits and certain porous salts.
"Probes have been sent to regions of Mars where ice-cemented ground is common — this was the case of Phoenix, in the northern plains," Fairen said. "Other environments, such as hundreds of regional accumulations of chloride salts, have been discovered very recently, only three years ago, and are dispersed on the ancient southern highlands. In any case, there have been no attempts to analyze any of these environments with modern biological instruments to search for life, extant or extinct."
Robot invasion of Mars
Fairen and his colleagues recommend a new strategy for the next decade of robotic investigations on Mars, one in which the search for extant life is the first priority.
"We call for a long-term architecture of the Mars Exploration Program that is organized around three main goals in the following order of priority — the search for extant life, the search for past life, and sample return," Fairen said.
The researchers envision probes targeting the kinds of areas where life might be found, and carrying instruments that can provide indisputable evidence – such as actual microbes – for the presence or absence of life. Robotic missions in search of spores, dormant life or organic remains could, for instance, drill a few yards down to reach ice-rich layers shielded from the high levels of radiation at the surface and use microscopes to examine their finds.
A mission aimed at looking for extant life would also be ideal for finding any extinct life, since dead organisms likely would be found in the same places as live ones would. Since soil bacteria in the Atacama Desert are spread out in a patchy manner, any new missions to search for life on Mars should incorporate a rover. Landers should also be used to return samples, if at all possible.
"The technology is ready," Fairen said. "We only need a new impulse and more ambition."
The scientists detailed their strategy online Oct. 7 in the journal Astrobiology.
Photos: Viking Missions to Mars, Mars Rover Discoveries
Bringing a Bit of Mars Back Home
Meteorite-Based Debate Over Martian Life Is Far from Over
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
The Space Shows That Never Were
The Three Disney Space Shows That Never Were
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Jim Korkis, staff writer, (Send an email)
“In our modern world, everywhere we look we see the influence science has upon our daily lives. Discoveries that were miracles a few short years ago are accepted as commonplace today. Many of the things that seem impossible now will become realities tomorrow. One of man’s oldest dreams has been the desire for space travel—to travel to other worlds. Until recently, this seemed to be an impossibility, but great new discoveries have brought us to the thresehold of a new frontier—the frontier of interplanetary space." — Walt Disney, March 9, 1955 (introduction to Man in Space)
advertisement
Back in the 1950s, scientist Wernher von Braun believed he could transform the public's fascination with science fiction into an interest in science fact that might spark faster development of a viable American space program. UFO sightings and a flood of science-fiction films preying on post-war paranoia filled the imagination of the American public.
Collier’s magazine (which had a weekly circulation of 3 million to 4 million readers) offered von Braun and other scientists like Heinz Haber and Willy Ley an opportunity to write a series of "science factual" articles. Ward Kimball eagerly read these articles. He was in charge of developing the space shows for the Tomorrowland segment of the Disneyland television series. Kimball contacted von Braun to act as a consultant and the scientist leapt at the chance. Von Braun realized that there were 15 million Americans with television sets and this was a perfect opportunity to "sell" the average American on the exploration of space.
"To make people believe that space flight was a possibility was his greatest accomplishment," said Mike Wright, staff historian for the Marshall Space Flight Center. "Von Braun brought all of this out of the realm of science fiction."
An estimated 42 million viewers saw the first Disney Tomorrowland space show, Man in Space, when it premiered on March 1955. It was followed by Man in the Moon in December 1955 and Mars and Beyond in December 1957. These three films are often credited with popularizing the United States government space program in the 1950s.
The films also influenced many people who later became aerospace engineers and even top NASA officials and had a significant cultural impact on the American space program. News articles half seriously suggested that the United States should turn over the space program to Disney since Disney had a plan and a vision.
In March 1961, when Walt talked with reporters about his new Wonderful World of Color show on NBC TV, he said that he wasn't going to make any more of the Tomorrowland space shows because they were just too expensive.
Donn Tatum, in an interview with Richard Hubler, stated, "Our experience was that they don't have as broad an appeal audience-wise and they are expensive to do and generally speaking the networks and the advertisers, while they didn't have any direct control over what we did, they would prefer things that got a bigger rating."
However, during Walt’s lifetime, there were three other Disney space shows that got to various stages of development: The Vanguard Project, The UFO Show and The NASA Show.
The Vanguard Project
Plans for Mars and Beyond began as early as 1954, with Kimball hoping the show would be finished by spring 1956. That airdate would coincide with Mars being closest to the Earth. However, the show didn’t end up being aired until December 1957. The reason was that Kimball and his team were temporarily sidetracked by another space show that was never made.
The National Academy of Sciences and the Naval Research Laboratory supported a new space program known as Project Vanguard. Von Braun worked on a competing program for the U.S. Army known as Redstone with the Explorer satellite. For a variety of reasons, the United States government chose to back Project Vanguard, especially since it gave the impression of being more scientific than military. Redstone was more of a public relations risk because of the involvement of Von Braun and his past connections with the German rocketry program during World War II.
The National Academy of Sciences and IBM (who were supplying the computer power for the project) asked Disney to make a film on Project Vanguard. They wanted the same support and enthusiasm of the American public for their plans as had been generated by the first two space shows. Kimball and his unit were pulled away from finishing up Mars and Beyond to concentrate on the timely topic, since the prediction was that the first Vanguard launch would be in the latter part of 1957. That prediction turned out to be more than a little optimistic. Kimball’s team prepared a story again utilizing the information from the experts on the project. Disney was ready to go into production when something happened that immediately cancelled the proposed Disney space episode.
On October 4, 1957, Russia orbited Sputnik I, the first artificial satellite, and marked the beginning of the "Space Race." A month later, the Russians launched Sputnik II with a dog as a passenger. By the time of Sputnik III, the United States government had reinstated Von Braun’s Redstone program, since it seemed that Vanguard would not be ready in the immediate future. Von Braun boldly announced on November 8, 1957, that the United States would have a satellite in orbit within 90 days.
Kimball’s crew had gone back to finishing Mars and Beyond. Fortunately, all the story meetings and filming sessions with Von Braun had taken place before October. Von Braun no longer had any time for the Disney television show as he raced on presidential orders to put America in space as quickly as possible.
Mars and Beyond aired on December 4, 1957. Two days later, the Vanguard rocket blew up on its launch pad. True to his word, Von Braun successfully launched Explorer I on January 31, 1958. It discovered the Van Allen Radiation Belt. Vanguard I was later successfully launched on March 17, 1958. Of the 11 Vanguard rockets that the project attempted to launch, only three successfully placed satellites into orbit.
Reportedly, the story and notes for the Vanguard Project still reside in the Disney Archives and the abandoned project was all but forgotten—except by the handful of Disney artists who had originally worked on it.
The UFO Show
At the very end of Mars and Beyond, a trio of flying saucers briefly zoom across the screen. Both technical consultants Willy Ley and Heinz Haber had been adamant when they first started working on the Disney space shows that there should be no mention of UFOs. They felt it would undercut the validity of the other material being presented and they were not pleased.
“When Walt came to me asking what we should with the Tomorrowland programs, he said, ‘You’re interested in UFOs and all that stuff…’ And I was. I had stacks of books and magazines about UFO sightings and I knew someday I would do something on the subject,” said Ward Kimball who produced and directed all three space shows.
One of Kimball’s 1950s cartoons for his Asinine Alley panel detailing the trials and tribulations of early motorists in The Horseless Carriage Gazette depicts a flying saucer with an intricate hook stealing an old time automobile while the helpless driver is held at raygun point by a helmeted alien from outer space.
Disney animation director Jack Kinney was originally assigned to do the space programs.
Kimball told Disney historian Michael Barrier, “Jack was not necessarily interested in the fact that we were going out into space, and I was always a UFO fan anyway.”
Kimball was given the job and a “blank check” from Walt Disney to do it.
Kimball had placed the flying saucers in the “beyond” section of the television show for several reasons. This episode of the space shows was more speculative than the previous “science-factual” episodes. He also realized that audiences wanted at least a glimpse of a flying saucer, especially with the UFO mania of the time. However, Kimball hedged his bets because, earlier in the show, this spacecraft had been introduced as a possible future “electromagnetic drive spaceship.” Since, in the last scene, Mars had been colonized, it could be assumed that these vehicles were of human origin.
“Even while I was doing the first three television shows, this [UFOs] was my idea for the fourth Tomorrowland program…that’s why you see the animated UFOs taking off at the end of Mars and Beyond. I had talked to Walt about this fourth show and what I was thinking about, and he said, ‘Great, but we’ve got to get convincing footage!’ We researched some of the incidents where people had taken actual films of flying saucers, and the trail led us to the Air Force establishment,” remembered Kimball for an interview in E Ticket magazine No. 24 (Summer 1996).
“We were told they had thousands of feet of so-called ‘alien objects’ footage, but that the material was classified," Kimball said. "We ran into a brick wall, dressed in khaki uniforms. I went to Walt with the fact that we couldn’t get ‘smoking gun’ footage of UFOs and we both agreed, that was the end of it.”
Kimball regaled an audience at the July 1979 MUFON Symposium in San Francisco with his speech about Disney and UFOs. The Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) founded in 1969 is an American nonprofit organization that investigates cases of reported UFO sightings. Kimball claimed that sometime in the mid-1950s, Walt Disney was contacted by the United States Air Force to cooperate on a documentary about UFOs. In addition, the USAF offered to supply actual UFO footage. However, once work began on the project, the USAF supposedly withdrew the offer to supply film footage.
Kimball claimed that he had personally talked with an Air Force colonel who was the USAF liaison on the project who told him that there was plenty of UFO footage. However, the colonel also emphasized that Disney was not going to be given access to it. Unfortunately, Kimball had a well-deserved reputation as a prankster who loved to stir people up so it is difficult to know whether he was being sincere when telling this story. There is no other documentation to support Kimball’s claims.
At the event, Kimball also showed an episode from the Disney Mouse Factory syndicated television series that ran from 1972-1974. It was titled Interplanetary Travel and hosted by comedian Jonathan Winters who dressed up as a variety of different alien creatures. Kimball had produced and directed the series but the attendees believed it contained lost excerpts from that proposed USAF documentary.
The closest that Walt Disney ever got to UFOs was the Flying Saucers attraction in Tomorrowland at Disneyland from 1961-1966 where guests rode in a flying saucer-shaped vehicle on a cushion of air to bump into other guests in their vehicles.
The NASA Show
In 1964, roughly 10 years after Man in Space aired, Wernher von Braun once again found himself frustrated by the U.S. government's current lack of enthusiasm about putting a man on the moon and, once again, von Braun saw that the solution was to involve Walt Disney.
Von Braun wrote to Bill Bosche, a sketch artist and writer on the earlier Disney space films with whom von Braun had worked closely. It was Bosche who sent von Braun long lists of technical questions that needed to be answered in order to develop the storyboards for the show. Bosche was an artist, writer, and producer at Disney for more than 30 years. In the letter, von Braun invited Walt and other key Disney personnel to tour the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala.
"It is really only a few short years ago since I had the pleasure of working at your studios (on a project) which, it turns out was quite prophetic," wrote von Braun, who was now director of NASA's space flight center in Huntsville. "I understand that over the years you have kept up a rather lively interest in the space program and, particularly, in manned space flight. For this reason, I thought you might like to have an opportunity to see just how prophetic [you were]."
It was apparent that von Braun was hoping lightning would strike twice and that he could get Walt so excited about what they were doing that it might generate another series of Disney television programs to enthuse the public to actively support a more aggressive space program.
Frank Williams, director of the Future Projects Office and a close associate of von Braun, wrote to Bart Slattery, director of the Public Affairs Office at the Marshall Space Flight Center, on November 13, 1964 that: "Out of this we would at least establish good will, and maybe (if we play our cards right) we could get something going that would be of tremendous benefit to MSFC, Apollo, NASA, and the entire space effort."
In April 1965, Walt Disney, accompanied by his brother Roy, as well as several WED Enterprise personnel—including Bill Bosche, Ken Peterson, John Hench, Claude Coats and Ken O'Connor—visited the three chief space centers at Houston, Cape Kennedy and Huntsville.
Walt took time out between his looking around to fly a couple of simulators. His earth-bound flight missions were both accomplished at NASA's manned spacecraft center at Houston. There, Walt at the age of 63 "flew" a Gemini simulator to a successful space rendezvous or docking, then "landed" on the moon in a LEM (lunar excursion module) after two professional airplane pilots had well overshot the green-dot target area on a simulated moon.
Without any previous experience, Walt had to quickly learn to operate and "fire" the retro-rockets which provide capsule control, accounting for drift and the other momentum factors that plague spacemen. (A month or two later, Walt would get a chance to take off from an aircraft carrier at sea with a massive catapult sending his plane over the waves. Walt was highly active the last couple of years of his life.)
On the front page of the April 13, 1965 edition of The Huntsville Times with a headline proclaiming "Walt Disney Makes Pledge to Aid Space," Walt was quoted as saying "If I can help through my TV shows … to wake people up to the fact we've got to keep exploring, I'll do it."
Von Braun's daily journal entry for April 13, 1965, indicated his hope that the tour "may easily result in a Disney picture about manned space flight." However, if von Braun was hoping that Walt would immediately put such a project into the works, he was sadly disappointed. Walt's attention was consumed with other projects. While Walt may have had an interest in space exploration, he was passionate about EPCOT, Cal Arts, Mineral King and a half dozen other projects that took precedence over developing another space series.
Disney Legend Card Walker told interviewer Richard Hubler: "[Walt] made a trip down to Houston, down to Cape Canaveral and all that through Wernher Von Braun to see the space program, the astronaut training and all that, and then went down to the space program at Kennedy and what they were doing. He was mulling this thing, we hadn't got it started, but he was ready to make a film to show the peace benefits that would come with the development of atomic energy. The government was interested, Wernher was interested—[Walt] just didn't get around to it. But that would have been the next step."
The usually reticent Roy O. Disney, Walt’s older brother, was quite verbose on his experience at Cape Kennedy at the time, where the great Saturn rockets were being made ready for possible manned flights to the moon.
"I was completely thrilled with what we saw," Roy said. "Anyone would be thrilled if he could see the fantastic effort and organization that must go behind space flights like the one McDivitt and White completed so brilliantly on their history-making four day mission. It's hard to comprehend—unless you've seen some of it first hand, as we did just prior to the flight-to really understand the daring that necessarily goes into an effort such as this one."
"The whole thing lies almost beyond the comprehension of the non-scientific mind," Roy continued. "For instance, 300,000 people are needed to set up, check out and operate a space flight, staffing a network that covers most of the world. These NASA crews are not permitted a single mistake, of course. All mistakes must be made ahead of time. And then the entire performance must be carried out before the eyes and ears of billions of people, both friendly and the unfriendly. Any American would be-should be-proud that all of us are in some way part of our country's efforts in tackling this fabulous new space frontier."
After more than 20 years, the still definitive article about the three original Disney space shows is the one written by Disney Archivist Dave Smith: "They're Following Our Script: Walt Disney's Trip to Tomorrowland" (FUTURE, May 1978). FUTURE was a short-lived magazine published by the same folks who publish STARLOG and Smith's excellent article is deserving of reprinting since every article written about the Disney space shows in the last 30 years cites Smith's outstanding research. And I just did, as well.
Comments
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Jim Korkis, staff writer, (Send an email)
“In our modern world, everywhere we look we see the influence science has upon our daily lives. Discoveries that were miracles a few short years ago are accepted as commonplace today. Many of the things that seem impossible now will become realities tomorrow. One of man’s oldest dreams has been the desire for space travel—to travel to other worlds. Until recently, this seemed to be an impossibility, but great new discoveries have brought us to the thresehold of a new frontier—the frontier of interplanetary space." — Walt Disney, March 9, 1955 (introduction to Man in Space)
advertisement
Back in the 1950s, scientist Wernher von Braun believed he could transform the public's fascination with science fiction into an interest in science fact that might spark faster development of a viable American space program. UFO sightings and a flood of science-fiction films preying on post-war paranoia filled the imagination of the American public.
Collier’s magazine (which had a weekly circulation of 3 million to 4 million readers) offered von Braun and other scientists like Heinz Haber and Willy Ley an opportunity to write a series of "science factual" articles. Ward Kimball eagerly read these articles. He was in charge of developing the space shows for the Tomorrowland segment of the Disneyland television series. Kimball contacted von Braun to act as a consultant and the scientist leapt at the chance. Von Braun realized that there were 15 million Americans with television sets and this was a perfect opportunity to "sell" the average American on the exploration of space.
"To make people believe that space flight was a possibility was his greatest accomplishment," said Mike Wright, staff historian for the Marshall Space Flight Center. "Von Braun brought all of this out of the realm of science fiction."
An estimated 42 million viewers saw the first Disney Tomorrowland space show, Man in Space, when it premiered on March 1955. It was followed by Man in the Moon in December 1955 and Mars and Beyond in December 1957. These three films are often credited with popularizing the United States government space program in the 1950s.
The films also influenced many people who later became aerospace engineers and even top NASA officials and had a significant cultural impact on the American space program. News articles half seriously suggested that the United States should turn over the space program to Disney since Disney had a plan and a vision.
In March 1961, when Walt talked with reporters about his new Wonderful World of Color show on NBC TV, he said that he wasn't going to make any more of the Tomorrowland space shows because they were just too expensive.
Donn Tatum, in an interview with Richard Hubler, stated, "Our experience was that they don't have as broad an appeal audience-wise and they are expensive to do and generally speaking the networks and the advertisers, while they didn't have any direct control over what we did, they would prefer things that got a bigger rating."
However, during Walt’s lifetime, there were three other Disney space shows that got to various stages of development: The Vanguard Project, The UFO Show and The NASA Show.
The Vanguard Project
Plans for Mars and Beyond began as early as 1954, with Kimball hoping the show would be finished by spring 1956. That airdate would coincide with Mars being closest to the Earth. However, the show didn’t end up being aired until December 1957. The reason was that Kimball and his team were temporarily sidetracked by another space show that was never made.
The National Academy of Sciences and the Naval Research Laboratory supported a new space program known as Project Vanguard. Von Braun worked on a competing program for the U.S. Army known as Redstone with the Explorer satellite. For a variety of reasons, the United States government chose to back Project Vanguard, especially since it gave the impression of being more scientific than military. Redstone was more of a public relations risk because of the involvement of Von Braun and his past connections with the German rocketry program during World War II.
The National Academy of Sciences and IBM (who were supplying the computer power for the project) asked Disney to make a film on Project Vanguard. They wanted the same support and enthusiasm of the American public for their plans as had been generated by the first two space shows. Kimball and his unit were pulled away from finishing up Mars and Beyond to concentrate on the timely topic, since the prediction was that the first Vanguard launch would be in the latter part of 1957. That prediction turned out to be more than a little optimistic. Kimball’s team prepared a story again utilizing the information from the experts on the project. Disney was ready to go into production when something happened that immediately cancelled the proposed Disney space episode.
On October 4, 1957, Russia orbited Sputnik I, the first artificial satellite, and marked the beginning of the "Space Race." A month later, the Russians launched Sputnik II with a dog as a passenger. By the time of Sputnik III, the United States government had reinstated Von Braun’s Redstone program, since it seemed that Vanguard would not be ready in the immediate future. Von Braun boldly announced on November 8, 1957, that the United States would have a satellite in orbit within 90 days.
Kimball’s crew had gone back to finishing Mars and Beyond. Fortunately, all the story meetings and filming sessions with Von Braun had taken place before October. Von Braun no longer had any time for the Disney television show as he raced on presidential orders to put America in space as quickly as possible.
Mars and Beyond aired on December 4, 1957. Two days later, the Vanguard rocket blew up on its launch pad. True to his word, Von Braun successfully launched Explorer I on January 31, 1958. It discovered the Van Allen Radiation Belt. Vanguard I was later successfully launched on March 17, 1958. Of the 11 Vanguard rockets that the project attempted to launch, only three successfully placed satellites into orbit.
Reportedly, the story and notes for the Vanguard Project still reside in the Disney Archives and the abandoned project was all but forgotten—except by the handful of Disney artists who had originally worked on it.
The UFO Show
At the very end of Mars and Beyond, a trio of flying saucers briefly zoom across the screen. Both technical consultants Willy Ley and Heinz Haber had been adamant when they first started working on the Disney space shows that there should be no mention of UFOs. They felt it would undercut the validity of the other material being presented and they were not pleased.
“When Walt came to me asking what we should with the Tomorrowland programs, he said, ‘You’re interested in UFOs and all that stuff…’ And I was. I had stacks of books and magazines about UFO sightings and I knew someday I would do something on the subject,” said Ward Kimball who produced and directed all three space shows.
One of Kimball’s 1950s cartoons for his Asinine Alley panel detailing the trials and tribulations of early motorists in The Horseless Carriage Gazette depicts a flying saucer with an intricate hook stealing an old time automobile while the helpless driver is held at raygun point by a helmeted alien from outer space.
Disney animation director Jack Kinney was originally assigned to do the space programs.
Kimball told Disney historian Michael Barrier, “Jack was not necessarily interested in the fact that we were going out into space, and I was always a UFO fan anyway.”
Kimball was given the job and a “blank check” from Walt Disney to do it.
Kimball had placed the flying saucers in the “beyond” section of the television show for several reasons. This episode of the space shows was more speculative than the previous “science-factual” episodes. He also realized that audiences wanted at least a glimpse of a flying saucer, especially with the UFO mania of the time. However, Kimball hedged his bets because, earlier in the show, this spacecraft had been introduced as a possible future “electromagnetic drive spaceship.” Since, in the last scene, Mars had been colonized, it could be assumed that these vehicles were of human origin.
“Even while I was doing the first three television shows, this [UFOs] was my idea for the fourth Tomorrowland program…that’s why you see the animated UFOs taking off at the end of Mars and Beyond. I had talked to Walt about this fourth show and what I was thinking about, and he said, ‘Great, but we’ve got to get convincing footage!’ We researched some of the incidents where people had taken actual films of flying saucers, and the trail led us to the Air Force establishment,” remembered Kimball for an interview in E Ticket magazine No. 24 (Summer 1996).
“We were told they had thousands of feet of so-called ‘alien objects’ footage, but that the material was classified," Kimball said. "We ran into a brick wall, dressed in khaki uniforms. I went to Walt with the fact that we couldn’t get ‘smoking gun’ footage of UFOs and we both agreed, that was the end of it.”
Kimball regaled an audience at the July 1979 MUFON Symposium in San Francisco with his speech about Disney and UFOs. The Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) founded in 1969 is an American nonprofit organization that investigates cases of reported UFO sightings. Kimball claimed that sometime in the mid-1950s, Walt Disney was contacted by the United States Air Force to cooperate on a documentary about UFOs. In addition, the USAF offered to supply actual UFO footage. However, once work began on the project, the USAF supposedly withdrew the offer to supply film footage.
Kimball claimed that he had personally talked with an Air Force colonel who was the USAF liaison on the project who told him that there was plenty of UFO footage. However, the colonel also emphasized that Disney was not going to be given access to it. Unfortunately, Kimball had a well-deserved reputation as a prankster who loved to stir people up so it is difficult to know whether he was being sincere when telling this story. There is no other documentation to support Kimball’s claims.
At the event, Kimball also showed an episode from the Disney Mouse Factory syndicated television series that ran from 1972-1974. It was titled Interplanetary Travel and hosted by comedian Jonathan Winters who dressed up as a variety of different alien creatures. Kimball had produced and directed the series but the attendees believed it contained lost excerpts from that proposed USAF documentary.
The closest that Walt Disney ever got to UFOs was the Flying Saucers attraction in Tomorrowland at Disneyland from 1961-1966 where guests rode in a flying saucer-shaped vehicle on a cushion of air to bump into other guests in their vehicles.
The NASA Show
In 1964, roughly 10 years after Man in Space aired, Wernher von Braun once again found himself frustrated by the U.S. government's current lack of enthusiasm about putting a man on the moon and, once again, von Braun saw that the solution was to involve Walt Disney.
Von Braun wrote to Bill Bosche, a sketch artist and writer on the earlier Disney space films with whom von Braun had worked closely. It was Bosche who sent von Braun long lists of technical questions that needed to be answered in order to develop the storyboards for the show. Bosche was an artist, writer, and producer at Disney for more than 30 years. In the letter, von Braun invited Walt and other key Disney personnel to tour the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala.
"It is really only a few short years ago since I had the pleasure of working at your studios (on a project) which, it turns out was quite prophetic," wrote von Braun, who was now director of NASA's space flight center in Huntsville. "I understand that over the years you have kept up a rather lively interest in the space program and, particularly, in manned space flight. For this reason, I thought you might like to have an opportunity to see just how prophetic [you were]."
It was apparent that von Braun was hoping lightning would strike twice and that he could get Walt so excited about what they were doing that it might generate another series of Disney television programs to enthuse the public to actively support a more aggressive space program.
Frank Williams, director of the Future Projects Office and a close associate of von Braun, wrote to Bart Slattery, director of the Public Affairs Office at the Marshall Space Flight Center, on November 13, 1964 that: "Out of this we would at least establish good will, and maybe (if we play our cards right) we could get something going that would be of tremendous benefit to MSFC, Apollo, NASA, and the entire space effort."
In April 1965, Walt Disney, accompanied by his brother Roy, as well as several WED Enterprise personnel—including Bill Bosche, Ken Peterson, John Hench, Claude Coats and Ken O'Connor—visited the three chief space centers at Houston, Cape Kennedy and Huntsville.
Walt took time out between his looking around to fly a couple of simulators. His earth-bound flight missions were both accomplished at NASA's manned spacecraft center at Houston. There, Walt at the age of 63 "flew" a Gemini simulator to a successful space rendezvous or docking, then "landed" on the moon in a LEM (lunar excursion module) after two professional airplane pilots had well overshot the green-dot target area on a simulated moon.
Without any previous experience, Walt had to quickly learn to operate and "fire" the retro-rockets which provide capsule control, accounting for drift and the other momentum factors that plague spacemen. (A month or two later, Walt would get a chance to take off from an aircraft carrier at sea with a massive catapult sending his plane over the waves. Walt was highly active the last couple of years of his life.)
On the front page of the April 13, 1965 edition of The Huntsville Times with a headline proclaiming "Walt Disney Makes Pledge to Aid Space," Walt was quoted as saying "If I can help through my TV shows … to wake people up to the fact we've got to keep exploring, I'll do it."
Von Braun's daily journal entry for April 13, 1965, indicated his hope that the tour "may easily result in a Disney picture about manned space flight." However, if von Braun was hoping that Walt would immediately put such a project into the works, he was sadly disappointed. Walt's attention was consumed with other projects. While Walt may have had an interest in space exploration, he was passionate about EPCOT, Cal Arts, Mineral King and a half dozen other projects that took precedence over developing another space series.
Disney Legend Card Walker told interviewer Richard Hubler: "[Walt] made a trip down to Houston, down to Cape Canaveral and all that through Wernher Von Braun to see the space program, the astronaut training and all that, and then went down to the space program at Kennedy and what they were doing. He was mulling this thing, we hadn't got it started, but he was ready to make a film to show the peace benefits that would come with the development of atomic energy. The government was interested, Wernher was interested—[Walt] just didn't get around to it. But that would have been the next step."
The usually reticent Roy O. Disney, Walt’s older brother, was quite verbose on his experience at Cape Kennedy at the time, where the great Saturn rockets were being made ready for possible manned flights to the moon.
"I was completely thrilled with what we saw," Roy said. "Anyone would be thrilled if he could see the fantastic effort and organization that must go behind space flights like the one McDivitt and White completed so brilliantly on their history-making four day mission. It's hard to comprehend—unless you've seen some of it first hand, as we did just prior to the flight-to really understand the daring that necessarily goes into an effort such as this one."
"The whole thing lies almost beyond the comprehension of the non-scientific mind," Roy continued. "For instance, 300,000 people are needed to set up, check out and operate a space flight, staffing a network that covers most of the world. These NASA crews are not permitted a single mistake, of course. All mistakes must be made ahead of time. And then the entire performance must be carried out before the eyes and ears of billions of people, both friendly and the unfriendly. Any American would be-should be-proud that all of us are in some way part of our country's efforts in tackling this fabulous new space frontier."
After more than 20 years, the still definitive article about the three original Disney space shows is the one written by Disney Archivist Dave Smith: "They're Following Our Script: Walt Disney's Trip to Tomorrowland" (FUTURE, May 1978). FUTURE was a short-lived magazine published by the same folks who publish STARLOG and Smith's excellent article is deserving of reprinting since every article written about the Disney space shows in the last 30 years cites Smith's outstanding research. And I just did, as well.
Comments
Evidence of Hydro Thermal Vents On Mars
Evidence for Hydrothermal Vents on Mars
Evidence for Hydrothermal Vents on Mars
Based on a JPL news release
Mars
Posted: 11/06/10
Summary: NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter has discovered mineral deposits on a volcanic cone that point to recent and habitable microenvironments for life on Mars. Hydrated silica flanking a volcanic cone indicates the presence of hydrothermal environments like hot springs, which might have been habitats for living organisms.
Silica on Mars Volcano Tells of Wet and Cozy Past
This volcanic cone in the Nili Patera caldera on Mars has hydrothermal mineral deposits on the southern flanks and nearby terrains. Two of the largest deposits are marked by arrows, and the entire field of light-toned material on the left of the cone is hydrothermal deposits. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/MSSS/JHU-APL/Brown Univ
Light-colored mounds of a mineral deposited on a volcanic cone more than three billion years ago may preserve evidence of one of the most recent habitable microenvironments on Mars.
Observations by NASA’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter enabled researchers to identify the mineral as hydrated silica and to see its volcanic context. The mounds’ composition and their location on the flanks of a volcanic cone provide the best evidence yet found on Mars for an intact deposit from a hydrothermal environment -- a steam fumarole, or hot spring. Such environments may have provided habitats for some of Earth’s earliest life forms.
“The heat and water required to create this deposit probably made this a habitable zone,” said J.R. Skok of Brown University, Providence, R.I., lead author of a paper about these findings published online by Nature Geoscience. “If life did exist there, this would be a promising type of deposit to entomb evidence of it -- a microbial mortuary.”
No studies have yet determined whether Mars has ever supported life. The new results add to accumulating evidence that, at some times and in some places, Mars has had favorable environments for microbial life.
In the spring of 2007, NASA's Spirit rover found a patch of bright-toned soil rich in silica. Credit: NASA/JPL/Cornell
This specific place would have been habitable when most of Mars was already dry and cold. Concentrations of hydrated silica have been identified on Mars previously, including a nearly pure patch found by NASA’s Mars Exploration Rover Spirit in 2007. However, none of those earlier findings were in such an intact setting as this one, and the setting adds evidence about the origin.
Skok said, “You have spectacular context for this deposit. It’s right on the flank of a volcano. The setting remains essentially the same as it was when the silica was deposited.”
The small cone rises about 100 meters (100 yards) from the floor of a shallow bowl named Nili Patera. The patera, which is the floor of a volcanic caldera, spans about 50 kilometers (30 miles) in the Syrtis Major volcanic region of equatorial Mars. Before the cone formed, free-flowing lava blanketed nearby plains. The collapse of an underground magma chamber from which lava had emanated created the bowl. Subsequent lava flows, still with a runny texture, coated the floor of Nili Patera. The cone grew from even later flows, apparently after evolution of the underground magma had thickened its texture so that the erupted lava would mound up.
Artist concept of Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter during deployment of its radar antenna. Image credit: NASA/JPL
“We can read a series of chapters in this history book and know that the cone grew from the last gasp of a giant volcanic system,” said John Mustard, Skok’s thesis advisor at Brown and a co-author of the paper. “The cooling and solidification of most of the magma concentrated its silica and water content.”
Observations by cameras on the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter revealed patches of bright deposits near the summit of the cone, fanning down its flank, and on flatter ground in the vicinity. The Brown researchers partnered with Scott Murchie of Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, Md., to analyze the bright exposures with the Compact Reconnaissance Imaging Spectrometer for Mars (CRISM) instrument on the orbiter.
Silica can be dissolved, transported and concentrated by hot water or steam. Hydrated silica identified by the spectrometer in uphill locations -- confirmed by stereo imaging -- indicates that hot springs or fumaroles fed by underground heating created these deposits. Silica deposits around hydrothermal vents in Iceland are among the best parallels on Earth.
Murchie said, “The habitable zone would have been within and alongside the conduits carrying the heated water.” The volcanic activity that built the cone in Nili Patera appears to have happened more recently than the 3.7-billion-year or greater age of Mars’ potentially habitable early wet environments recorded in clay minerals identified from orbit.
Evidence for Hydrothermal Vents on Mars
Based on a JPL news release
Mars
Posted: 11/06/10
Summary: NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter has discovered mineral deposits on a volcanic cone that point to recent and habitable microenvironments for life on Mars. Hydrated silica flanking a volcanic cone indicates the presence of hydrothermal environments like hot springs, which might have been habitats for living organisms.
Silica on Mars Volcano Tells of Wet and Cozy Past
This volcanic cone in the Nili Patera caldera on Mars has hydrothermal mineral deposits on the southern flanks and nearby terrains. Two of the largest deposits are marked by arrows, and the entire field of light-toned material on the left of the cone is hydrothermal deposits. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/MSSS/JHU-APL/Brown Univ
Light-colored mounds of a mineral deposited on a volcanic cone more than three billion years ago may preserve evidence of one of the most recent habitable microenvironments on Mars.
Observations by NASA’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter enabled researchers to identify the mineral as hydrated silica and to see its volcanic context. The mounds’ composition and their location on the flanks of a volcanic cone provide the best evidence yet found on Mars for an intact deposit from a hydrothermal environment -- a steam fumarole, or hot spring. Such environments may have provided habitats for some of Earth’s earliest life forms.
“The heat and water required to create this deposit probably made this a habitable zone,” said J.R. Skok of Brown University, Providence, R.I., lead author of a paper about these findings published online by Nature Geoscience. “If life did exist there, this would be a promising type of deposit to entomb evidence of it -- a microbial mortuary.”
No studies have yet determined whether Mars has ever supported life. The new results add to accumulating evidence that, at some times and in some places, Mars has had favorable environments for microbial life.
In the spring of 2007, NASA's Spirit rover found a patch of bright-toned soil rich in silica. Credit: NASA/JPL/Cornell
This specific place would have been habitable when most of Mars was already dry and cold. Concentrations of hydrated silica have been identified on Mars previously, including a nearly pure patch found by NASA’s Mars Exploration Rover Spirit in 2007. However, none of those earlier findings were in such an intact setting as this one, and the setting adds evidence about the origin.
Skok said, “You have spectacular context for this deposit. It’s right on the flank of a volcano. The setting remains essentially the same as it was when the silica was deposited.”
The small cone rises about 100 meters (100 yards) from the floor of a shallow bowl named Nili Patera. The patera, which is the floor of a volcanic caldera, spans about 50 kilometers (30 miles) in the Syrtis Major volcanic region of equatorial Mars. Before the cone formed, free-flowing lava blanketed nearby plains. The collapse of an underground magma chamber from which lava had emanated created the bowl. Subsequent lava flows, still with a runny texture, coated the floor of Nili Patera. The cone grew from even later flows, apparently after evolution of the underground magma had thickened its texture so that the erupted lava would mound up.
Artist concept of Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter during deployment of its radar antenna. Image credit: NASA/JPL
“We can read a series of chapters in this history book and know that the cone grew from the last gasp of a giant volcanic system,” said John Mustard, Skok’s thesis advisor at Brown and a co-author of the paper. “The cooling and solidification of most of the magma concentrated its silica and water content.”
Observations by cameras on the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter revealed patches of bright deposits near the summit of the cone, fanning down its flank, and on flatter ground in the vicinity. The Brown researchers partnered with Scott Murchie of Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, Md., to analyze the bright exposures with the Compact Reconnaissance Imaging Spectrometer for Mars (CRISM) instrument on the orbiter.
Silica can be dissolved, transported and concentrated by hot water or steam. Hydrated silica identified by the spectrometer in uphill locations -- confirmed by stereo imaging -- indicates that hot springs or fumaroles fed by underground heating created these deposits. Silica deposits around hydrothermal vents in Iceland are among the best parallels on Earth.
Murchie said, “The habitable zone would have been within and alongside the conduits carrying the heated water.” The volcanic activity that built the cone in Nili Patera appears to have happened more recently than the 3.7-billion-year or greater age of Mars’ potentially habitable early wet environments recorded in clay minerals identified from orbit.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Explore Mars, Inc- A Great Organization
http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/1455-BWB-2010-11-08.mp3
Monday, November 8, 2010
We Could Be Running Out Of Time To Send A Manned Mission To Mars
We could be running out of time to send astronauts to Mars
America's current plans for human space exploration seem horribly slow, considering we won't leave Earth's orbit until 2025 and won't reach Mars until 2035. Worse than that, solar radiation spikes could keep us grounded for decades more.
The Sun emits a steady stream of potentially deadly cosmic radiation. As long as humans remain within the Earth's atmosphere, the threat posed by this radiation is practically nil, but any extended trips into deep space require careful shielding to protect astronauts from the threat of radiation sickness or cancer. The exact levels of radiation vary depending on the severity of solar activity, which falls into a number of predictable cycles.
That's where the problem starts, according to a new study by NASA scientist John Norbury. We already know about the Schwabe cycle, which shows sunspot activity reaches its peak, known as the solar maximum, every 11 years. When this occurs, there's a big increase in solar flares and coronal mass ejections, which together spread deadly radiation throughout the solar system. The last solar maximum was reached in 2002, so we're headed for more in 2013, 2024, and 2035. Those last two dates are worrying, considering the current "2025 out of orbit/2035 to Mars" plans of the United States.
Of course, if solar flares really are a problem, then it's easy enough to adjust the years slightly to avoid them. But we might be dealing with an even bigger problem - there's also the Gleissberg cycle, which is a longer cycle where the intensity of the solar maximums themselves wax and wane over a period of about 80 to 90 years. That means all flares would be significantly more deadly, the radiation would be greater, and any trips beyond Earth's orbit incredibly, perhaps impossibly, dangerous.
So when is the next time we hit the peak of the Gleissberg cycle? That's the problem - we don't know, at least not exactly. In order to know the exact timing of the next Gleissberg maximum, we would have to know when the last ones occurred, and that would require sunspot records going back centuries, which is something we don't have. However, there are some indirect ways to estimate when the previous maximums occurred, mostly involving carbon-14.
Scientists are fairly sure the last maximums were in 1790, 1870, and 1950. That seems to put the next Gleissberg maximum at right around 2030, with a total danger zone of about 20 years from 2020 to 2040. That's precisely when the United States - not to mention China and other countries - hope to send astronauts back to the Moon and onto Mars. If radiation levels are lethally high, a Mars mission could be a horrific failure, as astrobiologist Lewis Dartnell explains:
"The worse-case scenario is that if you radiate a crew sufficiently, they'd all succumb to radiation sickness within a few days and essentially vomit and diarrhoea themselves to death within an enclosed capsule."
If all these fears of increased radiation come to pass, it still might be possible to send astronauts to Mars, assuming radiation shielding can be suitably improved. But that's going to take serious investment in new technologies that can repel the cosmic rays without creating secondary radiation. Honestly, it might just be easier to get to Mars by the end of the decade. Hey, it worked for the Apollo project...
[Advances in Space Research via Physics World]
Send an email to Alasdair Wilkins, the author of this post, at alasdair@io9.com.
Follow us to see the most popular stories among your friends -- or sign up for our daily newsletter below.
Get io9 in your inbox:
Savant74
11/05/10
Whatever ship they build to take people to mars, they better have at least a little protection from cosmic rays. Lead would be difficult to get into space but a nice thick layer of that would help, even if it's just around a small section of the ship.
See 1 reply
Feyhra
11/05/10
Divert auxiliary power to the shields. That should deal with that pesky solar radiation. Failing that, couldn't we just send a few expendable skin jobs instead? Those will be a dime a dozen in 2035.
See 1 reply
Szin
11/05/10
I'm going to Mars the old fashioned way!
Jester21
11/05/10
Vomit and diarrhea to death?... Or become superheroes?!...
See 1 reply
Rick Lucey
11/05/10
Space the final and deadly frontier. I wonder if we will ever get out there maybe if we find the cure.
bma2192
11/05/10
Do we not have materials that block radiation? If we plan to eventually colonize space, we're going to be running into all kinds of radiation... why not get into the habit of building space craft and space suits that can handle it instead of waiting for the weather to get better? Do you think people in Seattle just stay in their houses waiting for the rain to go away?? Make a raincoat and go already!
Thats what we get for nickel and diming stuff like this-- we cant explore SPACE with contractors who win the lowest bid... its depressing to know that budgets and money keep us back more often than our technical advances. Our knowledge and tech could take us so much further if not for this fictional piece of green paper we give so much power to-- and, yes, I wish I had a solution, cause nobody is going to work their asses off with no tangible compensation to look forward to... damn, now Im just rambling... oh well, get private funding and build 'em thicker and heavier-- there must be a way, right?
See 3 replies
Arken
11/05/10
Radiation shielding will always be a major problem on an Earth-Mars journey that will have to be solved adequately anyway. This will make it more difficult, but the problem is always there.
deondt
11/05/10
Most people don't believe in the prophecy of the Bible, but if one reads Revelation and consider all these statements together, then the outcome becomes a bit more clearer ... however, the ultimate truth & future remains a mystery known only to the One in control (the Director, namely God). Those who despise this message & don't believe will some day (soon) realize its reality ..., D
Feyhra approved this comment
See 1 reply
Dr Emilio Lizardo
11/05/10
That might be the worst case scenario but the best case scenario is that the astronauts develop all kinds of cool new mutations and become superheroes.
Kaijima Dracon
11/05/10
Such alarmism always makes me roll my eyes. It's not that radiation cycles aren't a valid concern; they're a big issue.
But every time someone opens their mouth and talks about how we're doomed because some naturally occurring facet of the universe is gonna be tough to deal with, I ask: "Look, if we are going to survive in space, don't we have to find ways to deal with these supposedly insurmountable problems anyway?"
The solar system may as well go ahead and turn up the heat. It's a problem we've got to solve or long-term space travel will be too stilted and marginalized to be of real value in the first place.
dragonfliet promoted this comment
Makidian approved this comment
See 1 reply
Anciegher
11/05/10
Shields up!
jabber approved this comment
See 2 replies
Illundiel
11/05/10
Would building a Dyson sphere solve the problem?
See 6 replies
diasdiem
11/05/10
The best-case scenario is that when they arrive on Mars they will now have super powers.
Edited by diasdiem at 11/05/10 8:38 AM
John Reck
11/05/10
Worst cast scenario? They shit themselves to death in the cold vacuum of space. But what about the best cast scenario? All I read was "cosmic rays."
corpore-metal promoted this comment
See 4 replies
BangarangRufio867
11/05/10
The side effects of radiation sickness are almost identical to that of a bad hangover. I say, just drink some coffee, take some tylenol, and smoke some weed. Should take care of the radiation sickness.
d_r_e promoted this comment
VicViper
11/05/10
If comic books have taught me anything, I think we should just send astronauts when there is the most radiation possible and eagerly await for their return as super humans.
emeraldcite
11/05/10
Probably a non-issue. Since the whole date thing is really arbitrary as no admin is providing critical, safe-from-cuts funding to really get this, in a most literal way, off the ground.
Besides, we're talking two decades. In politics and funding, that's several life cycles.
I think the original statement was simply a "don't worry, we're still committed to stuff" statement and not any real plan.
corpore-metal promoted this comment
Graviton1066
11/05/10
This concern about solar radiation seems completely overblown and needlessly alarmist.
See 7 replies
corpore-metal
11/05/10
I'm rolling my eyes at this alarmism. The solar max will pass and we can send astronauts after it. It's not like we'll be grounded for all eternity.
That said, solar radiation is a hazard. It was why they had to be careful when they sent astronauts to the Moon. They didn't want to send them on weeks or months when Old Sol was feeling her oats.
FrankN.Stein
11/05/10
and why should that be a problem...Oh...I See....
See 1 reply
TemporalSword
11/05/10
Hey, we had a rocket system designed specifically to go back to the moon and then on to Mars well on its way. But thanks to Obama and his administration, that program was scrapped and now we're looking to start all over again. Why don't you tell this to the people who decide our funding?
Edited by TemporalSword at 11/05/10 8:11 AM
See 28 replies
sephycloneno15
11/05/10
But even if we Apollo it and get to Mars ASAP, it's not like we can do much other than plant a flag, grab some rocks, and skedaddle home before the solar flares kick up and fry any astronauts that don't manage to pack up and go right away, right? Mars has a practically nonexistent atmosphere that isn't going to let us do much while we're there except tell everyone we've been there unless we manage to develop those improved radiation shielding techniques anyways, right?
See 6 replies
zim11
11/05/10
Maybe but I thought those clever scientist are trying to build a working electromagnetic shield to deflect the dangerous radiation.>
The BBC did a story on it ages ago, there is probably more update info on the net somewhere.
Edit : What the hell happened to my txt ?
[news.bbc.co.uk]
Edited by zim11 at 11/05/10 8:09 AM
See 1 reply
ManchuCandidate
11/05/10
Then the Prophesy of the Incredible Melting Man comes true.
[en.wikipedia.org]
See 2 replies
Earlier discussions | Show all discussions | Expand al
America's current plans for human space exploration seem horribly slow, considering we won't leave Earth's orbit until 2025 and won't reach Mars until 2035. Worse than that, solar radiation spikes could keep us grounded for decades more.
The Sun emits a steady stream of potentially deadly cosmic radiation. As long as humans remain within the Earth's atmosphere, the threat posed by this radiation is practically nil, but any extended trips into deep space require careful shielding to protect astronauts from the threat of radiation sickness or cancer. The exact levels of radiation vary depending on the severity of solar activity, which falls into a number of predictable cycles.
That's where the problem starts, according to a new study by NASA scientist John Norbury. We already know about the Schwabe cycle, which shows sunspot activity reaches its peak, known as the solar maximum, every 11 years. When this occurs, there's a big increase in solar flares and coronal mass ejections, which together spread deadly radiation throughout the solar system. The last solar maximum was reached in 2002, so we're headed for more in 2013, 2024, and 2035. Those last two dates are worrying, considering the current "2025 out of orbit/2035 to Mars" plans of the United States.
Of course, if solar flares really are a problem, then it's easy enough to adjust the years slightly to avoid them. But we might be dealing with an even bigger problem - there's also the Gleissberg cycle, which is a longer cycle where the intensity of the solar maximums themselves wax and wane over a period of about 80 to 90 years. That means all flares would be significantly more deadly, the radiation would be greater, and any trips beyond Earth's orbit incredibly, perhaps impossibly, dangerous.
So when is the next time we hit the peak of the Gleissberg cycle? That's the problem - we don't know, at least not exactly. In order to know the exact timing of the next Gleissberg maximum, we would have to know when the last ones occurred, and that would require sunspot records going back centuries, which is something we don't have. However, there are some indirect ways to estimate when the previous maximums occurred, mostly involving carbon-14.
Scientists are fairly sure the last maximums were in 1790, 1870, and 1950. That seems to put the next Gleissberg maximum at right around 2030, with a total danger zone of about 20 years from 2020 to 2040. That's precisely when the United States - not to mention China and other countries - hope to send astronauts back to the Moon and onto Mars. If radiation levels are lethally high, a Mars mission could be a horrific failure, as astrobiologist Lewis Dartnell explains:
"The worse-case scenario is that if you radiate a crew sufficiently, they'd all succumb to radiation sickness within a few days and essentially vomit and diarrhoea themselves to death within an enclosed capsule."
If all these fears of increased radiation come to pass, it still might be possible to send astronauts to Mars, assuming radiation shielding can be suitably improved. But that's going to take serious investment in new technologies that can repel the cosmic rays without creating secondary radiation. Honestly, it might just be easier to get to Mars by the end of the decade. Hey, it worked for the Apollo project...
[Advances in Space Research via Physics World]
Send an email to Alasdair Wilkins, the author of this post, at alasdair@io9.com.
Follow us to see the most popular stories among your friends -- or sign up for our daily newsletter below.
Get io9 in your inbox:
Savant74
11/05/10
Whatever ship they build to take people to mars, they better have at least a little protection from cosmic rays. Lead would be difficult to get into space but a nice thick layer of that would help, even if it's just around a small section of the ship.
See 1 reply
Feyhra
11/05/10
Divert auxiliary power to the shields. That should deal with that pesky solar radiation. Failing that, couldn't we just send a few expendable skin jobs instead? Those will be a dime a dozen in 2035.
See 1 reply
Szin
11/05/10
I'm going to Mars the old fashioned way!
Jester21
11/05/10
Vomit and diarrhea to death?... Or become superheroes?!...
See 1 reply
Rick Lucey
11/05/10
Space the final and deadly frontier. I wonder if we will ever get out there maybe if we find the cure.
bma2192
11/05/10
Do we not have materials that block radiation? If we plan to eventually colonize space, we're going to be running into all kinds of radiation... why not get into the habit of building space craft and space suits that can handle it instead of waiting for the weather to get better? Do you think people in Seattle just stay in their houses waiting for the rain to go away?? Make a raincoat and go already!
Thats what we get for nickel and diming stuff like this-- we cant explore SPACE with contractors who win the lowest bid... its depressing to know that budgets and money keep us back more often than our technical advances. Our knowledge and tech could take us so much further if not for this fictional piece of green paper we give so much power to-- and, yes, I wish I had a solution, cause nobody is going to work their asses off with no tangible compensation to look forward to... damn, now Im just rambling... oh well, get private funding and build 'em thicker and heavier-- there must be a way, right?
See 3 replies
Arken
11/05/10
Radiation shielding will always be a major problem on an Earth-Mars journey that will have to be solved adequately anyway. This will make it more difficult, but the problem is always there.
deondt
11/05/10
Most people don't believe in the prophecy of the Bible, but if one reads Revelation and consider all these statements together, then the outcome becomes a bit more clearer ... however, the ultimate truth & future remains a mystery known only to the One in control (the Director, namely God). Those who despise this message & don't believe will some day (soon) realize its reality ..., D
Feyhra approved this comment
See 1 reply
Dr Emilio Lizardo
11/05/10
That might be the worst case scenario but the best case scenario is that the astronauts develop all kinds of cool new mutations and become superheroes.
Kaijima Dracon
11/05/10
Such alarmism always makes me roll my eyes. It's not that radiation cycles aren't a valid concern; they're a big issue.
But every time someone opens their mouth and talks about how we're doomed because some naturally occurring facet of the universe is gonna be tough to deal with, I ask: "Look, if we are going to survive in space, don't we have to find ways to deal with these supposedly insurmountable problems anyway?"
The solar system may as well go ahead and turn up the heat. It's a problem we've got to solve or long-term space travel will be too stilted and marginalized to be of real value in the first place.
dragonfliet promoted this comment
Makidian approved this comment
See 1 reply
Anciegher
11/05/10
Shields up!
jabber approved this comment
See 2 replies
Illundiel
11/05/10
Would building a Dyson sphere solve the problem?
See 6 replies
diasdiem
11/05/10
The best-case scenario is that when they arrive on Mars they will now have super powers.
Edited by diasdiem at 11/05/10 8:38 AM
John Reck
11/05/10
Worst cast scenario? They shit themselves to death in the cold vacuum of space. But what about the best cast scenario? All I read was "cosmic rays."
corpore-metal promoted this comment
See 4 replies
BangarangRufio867
11/05/10
The side effects of radiation sickness are almost identical to that of a bad hangover. I say, just drink some coffee, take some tylenol, and smoke some weed. Should take care of the radiation sickness.
d_r_e promoted this comment
VicViper
11/05/10
If comic books have taught me anything, I think we should just send astronauts when there is the most radiation possible and eagerly await for their return as super humans.
emeraldcite
11/05/10
Probably a non-issue. Since the whole date thing is really arbitrary as no admin is providing critical, safe-from-cuts funding to really get this, in a most literal way, off the ground.
Besides, we're talking two decades. In politics and funding, that's several life cycles.
I think the original statement was simply a "don't worry, we're still committed to stuff" statement and not any real plan.
corpore-metal promoted this comment
Graviton1066
11/05/10
This concern about solar radiation seems completely overblown and needlessly alarmist.
See 7 replies
corpore-metal
11/05/10
I'm rolling my eyes at this alarmism. The solar max will pass and we can send astronauts after it. It's not like we'll be grounded for all eternity.
That said, solar radiation is a hazard. It was why they had to be careful when they sent astronauts to the Moon. They didn't want to send them on weeks or months when Old Sol was feeling her oats.
FrankN.Stein
11/05/10
and why should that be a problem...Oh...I See....
See 1 reply
TemporalSword
11/05/10
Hey, we had a rocket system designed specifically to go back to the moon and then on to Mars well on its way. But thanks to Obama and his administration, that program was scrapped and now we're looking to start all over again. Why don't you tell this to the people who decide our funding?
Edited by TemporalSword at 11/05/10 8:11 AM
See 28 replies
sephycloneno15
11/05/10
But even if we Apollo it and get to Mars ASAP, it's not like we can do much other than plant a flag, grab some rocks, and skedaddle home before the solar flares kick up and fry any astronauts that don't manage to pack up and go right away, right? Mars has a practically nonexistent atmosphere that isn't going to let us do much while we're there except tell everyone we've been there unless we manage to develop those improved radiation shielding techniques anyways, right?
See 6 replies
zim11
11/05/10
Maybe but I thought those clever scientist are trying to build a working electromagnetic shield to deflect the dangerous radiation.>
The BBC did a story on it ages ago, there is probably more update info on the net somewhere.
Edit : What the hell happened to my txt ?
[news.bbc.co.uk]
Edited by zim11 at 11/05/10 8:09 AM
See 1 reply
ManchuCandidate
11/05/10
Then the Prophesy of the Incredible Melting Man comes true.
[en.wikipedia.org]
See 2 replies
Earlier discussions | Show all discussions | Expand al
Manned Mars Missions 2020-2050 May Be stopped By Solar Radiation
Obama's dream of Mars at risk from radiation
Nov 4, 2010 10 comments
The red planet, as seen by the Hubble Space Telescope
Higher levels of space radiation between 2020 and 2040 could endanger US President Barack Obama's vision for a manned mission to Mars, according to a NASA scientist. The result of two separate solar-activity cycles, which are both predicted to hit their maximum during the period, the increased radiation could cause radiation sickness and an increased cancer risk for any astronauts venturing away from the safety of the Earth's atmosphere.
In April Obama laid out his plans for the future of US space travel: NASA would once again have the technology to carry humans beyond low Earth orbit by 2025, with an asteroid the first likely target. He went on to suggest that astronauts could be orbiting Mars by the mid-2030s. Obama's plans sit alongside the ambitions of other countries to expand their human-spaceflight programmes; the head of China's space agency has recently suggested a manned Chinese Moon mission might be possible by 2025.
However, John Norbury of the NASA Langley Research Center in Virginia suggests there might be an increase in solar activity over this period, possibly hampering the planned missions. In a review paper, published in the journal Advances in Space Research, Norbury brings together several previous studies on solar-activity cycles and applies the findings specifically to the period 2020–2040.
Radiation floods the solar system
Norbury first looked at the well-established Schwabe cycle, where sunspot numbers reach a peak roughly once every 11 years. The height of this activity, or solar maximum, sees a marked increase in solar flares, as well as coronal mass ejections (CMEs), both mechanisms for flooding the solar system with proton radiation. Norbury predicts the next three Schwabe maxima will occur in 2013, 2024 and 2035, with the later two dates coinciding almost exactly with America and China's space-faring aspirations.
However, the intensity of each solar maximum is also thought to oscillate over a period, called the Gleissberg cycle, of roughly every 80–90 years. A Gleissberg maximum is then, in effect, a double maximum. But pinning down the exact length of this cycle is more difficult because sunspot records stretching back over previous centuries are either incomplete or not as accurate as modern-day data. Instead, information from sunspot records has to be combined with data from other “proxies”.
One such proxy is the carbon-14 record. During a solar minimum, fewer galactic cosmic rays are intercepted by the Sun's lower magnetic activity, and so more bombard the Earth's atmosphere, where they interact with atmospheric nitrogen that then decays into carbon-14. So a decrease in carbon-14 represents an increase in solar-activity levels.
Apollo astronauts were lucky
Norbury combined sunspot records with studies of carbon-14 trapped in tree rings, along with nitrate records from ice cores, to suggest the last three Gleissberg maxima occurred in 1790, 1870 and 1950. Such a pattern implies the next Gleissberg maximum should fall between 2020 and 2040, meaning more frequent solar events and a higher chance of those leaving low Earth orbit being irradiated, something the short NASA Apollo missions were fortunate to avoid.
“The Moon missions were just blind lucky,” explains Lewis Dartnell, an astrobiologist at University College, London. “The astronauts would have experienced radiation sickness and a higher risk of future cancer if they'd been hit,” he adds. However, crews travelling to an asteroid or Mars, journeys that take months rather than days, are subject to a much greater risk. “The worse-case scenario is that if you radiate a crew sufficiently, they'd all succumb to radiation sickness within a few days and essentially vomit and diarrhoea themselves to death within an enclosed capsule,” Dartnell told physicsworld.com.
Potentially there are ways to protect astronauts, including using polythene and the spacecraft's water supply as radiation shielding, but there is a problem. “The particles are scattered by hitting nuclei within the water or polythene; it's essentially a nuclear interaction and you end up producing secondary radiation,” Mike Hapgood of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in the UK explains. Hapgood and colleagues are currently working on an alternative technique that involves surrounding the spacecraft with a plasma shield to deflect incoming protons without creating secondary radiation. However, with the idea still in its infancy, Hapgood believes the chances of it being ready in time for Obama's 2030s Mars shot “strongly depends on future investment”.
About the author
Colin Stuart is a science writer and astronomer based in London
10 comments
Add your comments on this article
1
reader01
Nov 4, 2010 5:14 PM
Plasma shield or new materials
For construction of inner cabins of space rocket could be used materials which are used at future fusion reactors. So it is possible to solve these two problems at once.
Reply to this comment Offensive? Unsuitable? Notify Editor
2
Zebrev
Nov 5, 2010 12:46 PM
Moscow, Russian Federation
Never...
Men will never land Mars. It's obvious.
Reply to this comment Offensive? Unsuitable? Notify Editor
3
KV124
Nov 5, 2010 1:47 PM
Boca Raton, United States
Never?
Never is a very powerful word. Many a foolish phrase have begun with Never....
Reply to this comment Offensive? Unsuitable? Notify Editor
4
talcha2ted
Nov 6, 2010 12:50 AM
Men arriving on Mars in the near future.
Quote:
Originally posted by Zebrev
Men will never land Mars. It's obvious.
This is quite correct and can be derived from fundamental principles. Women, of course, will get there first!
Reply to this comment Offensive? Unsuitable? Notify Editor
5
xlines
Nov 6, 2010 10:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by talcha2ted
Quote:
Originally posted by Zebrev
Men will never land Mars. It's obvious.
This is quite correct and can be derived from fundamental principles. Women, of course, will get there first!
LOL! High five! :)
Reply to this comment Offensive? Unsuitable? Notify Editor
6
reader01
Nov 6, 2010 1:31 PM
radiation protection
I think that if there will be any space rocket that use any kind of nuclear power motor than it will need radiation protection anyway.
Reply to this comment Offensive? Unsuitable? Notify Editor
7
jpivarski
Nov 6, 2010 3:47 PM
I bet five feet of concrete would do it...
... or as many inches of lead. It's just too bad it's hard to get heavy things into orbit (and accelerate/decelerate them). A shield made of heavy inert material might even be able to convert the radiation into a heat/power source, depending on the particle flux (typically MeV energies per particle from the sun).
Reply to this comment Offensive? Unsuitable? Notify Editor
8
reader01
Nov 7, 2010 12:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by jpivarski
... or as many inches of lead. It's just too bad it's hard to get heavy things into orbit (and accelerate/decelerate them). A shield made of heavy inert material might even be able to convert the radiation into a heat/power source, depending on the particle flux (typically MeV energies per particle from the sun).
Why only to use this solar particle as a source of heat? I think it is a good idea to use these particles for nuclear power energy for rocket. I know, it is your idea and not bad.
Reply to this comment Offensive? Unsuitable? Notify Editor
9
reader01
Nov 8, 2010 4:27 PM
I know this is not probably possible
But, is there any chance to explore mirrors as source of power at outer space? Or exist such mirrors ,shield, that can reflect radiation out of surface of rocket. I mean exist any such material??
Reply to this comment Offensive? Unsuitable? Notify Editor
10
jjeherrera
Nov 8, 2010 5:20 PM
Ciudad Universitaria, Mexico
Quote:
Hapgood and colleagues are currently working on an alternative technique that involves surrounding the spacecraft with a plasma shield to deflect incoming protons without creating secondary radiation. However, with the idea still in its infancy, Hapgood believes the chances of it being ready in time for Obama's 2030s Mars shot “strongly depends on future investment”.
The idea was actually proposed back in the 60's, but there hasn't been a strong motivation to pursue it. So it will definitely “strongly depends on future investment”.
Reply to this comment Offensive? Unsuitable? Notify Editor
Nov 4, 2010 10 comments
The red planet, as seen by the Hubble Space Telescope
Higher levels of space radiation between 2020 and 2040 could endanger US President Barack Obama's vision for a manned mission to Mars, according to a NASA scientist. The result of two separate solar-activity cycles, which are both predicted to hit their maximum during the period, the increased radiation could cause radiation sickness and an increased cancer risk for any astronauts venturing away from the safety of the Earth's atmosphere.
In April Obama laid out his plans for the future of US space travel: NASA would once again have the technology to carry humans beyond low Earth orbit by 2025, with an asteroid the first likely target. He went on to suggest that astronauts could be orbiting Mars by the mid-2030s. Obama's plans sit alongside the ambitions of other countries to expand their human-spaceflight programmes; the head of China's space agency has recently suggested a manned Chinese Moon mission might be possible by 2025.
However, John Norbury of the NASA Langley Research Center in Virginia suggests there might be an increase in solar activity over this period, possibly hampering the planned missions. In a review paper, published in the journal Advances in Space Research, Norbury brings together several previous studies on solar-activity cycles and applies the findings specifically to the period 2020–2040.
Radiation floods the solar system
Norbury first looked at the well-established Schwabe cycle, where sunspot numbers reach a peak roughly once every 11 years. The height of this activity, or solar maximum, sees a marked increase in solar flares, as well as coronal mass ejections (CMEs), both mechanisms for flooding the solar system with proton radiation. Norbury predicts the next three Schwabe maxima will occur in 2013, 2024 and 2035, with the later two dates coinciding almost exactly with America and China's space-faring aspirations.
However, the intensity of each solar maximum is also thought to oscillate over a period, called the Gleissberg cycle, of roughly every 80–90 years. A Gleissberg maximum is then, in effect, a double maximum. But pinning down the exact length of this cycle is more difficult because sunspot records stretching back over previous centuries are either incomplete or not as accurate as modern-day data. Instead, information from sunspot records has to be combined with data from other “proxies”.
One such proxy is the carbon-14 record. During a solar minimum, fewer galactic cosmic rays are intercepted by the Sun's lower magnetic activity, and so more bombard the Earth's atmosphere, where they interact with atmospheric nitrogen that then decays into carbon-14. So a decrease in carbon-14 represents an increase in solar-activity levels.
Apollo astronauts were lucky
Norbury combined sunspot records with studies of carbon-14 trapped in tree rings, along with nitrate records from ice cores, to suggest the last three Gleissberg maxima occurred in 1790, 1870 and 1950. Such a pattern implies the next Gleissberg maximum should fall between 2020 and 2040, meaning more frequent solar events and a higher chance of those leaving low Earth orbit being irradiated, something the short NASA Apollo missions were fortunate to avoid.
“The Moon missions were just blind lucky,” explains Lewis Dartnell, an astrobiologist at University College, London. “The astronauts would have experienced radiation sickness and a higher risk of future cancer if they'd been hit,” he adds. However, crews travelling to an asteroid or Mars, journeys that take months rather than days, are subject to a much greater risk. “The worse-case scenario is that if you radiate a crew sufficiently, they'd all succumb to radiation sickness within a few days and essentially vomit and diarrhoea themselves to death within an enclosed capsule,” Dartnell told physicsworld.com.
Potentially there are ways to protect astronauts, including using polythene and the spacecraft's water supply as radiation shielding, but there is a problem. “The particles are scattered by hitting nuclei within the water or polythene; it's essentially a nuclear interaction and you end up producing secondary radiation,” Mike Hapgood of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in the UK explains. Hapgood and colleagues are currently working on an alternative technique that involves surrounding the spacecraft with a plasma shield to deflect incoming protons without creating secondary radiation. However, with the idea still in its infancy, Hapgood believes the chances of it being ready in time for Obama's 2030s Mars shot “strongly depends on future investment”.
About the author
Colin Stuart is a science writer and astronomer based in London
10 comments
Add your comments on this article
1
reader01
Nov 4, 2010 5:14 PM
Plasma shield or new materials
For construction of inner cabins of space rocket could be used materials which are used at future fusion reactors. So it is possible to solve these two problems at once.
Reply to this comment Offensive? Unsuitable? Notify Editor
2
Zebrev
Nov 5, 2010 12:46 PM
Moscow, Russian Federation
Never...
Men will never land Mars. It's obvious.
Reply to this comment Offensive? Unsuitable? Notify Editor
3
KV124
Nov 5, 2010 1:47 PM
Boca Raton, United States
Never?
Never is a very powerful word. Many a foolish phrase have begun with Never....
Reply to this comment Offensive? Unsuitable? Notify Editor
4
talcha2ted
Nov 6, 2010 12:50 AM
Men arriving on Mars in the near future.
Quote:
Originally posted by Zebrev
Men will never land Mars. It's obvious.
This is quite correct and can be derived from fundamental principles. Women, of course, will get there first!
Reply to this comment Offensive? Unsuitable? Notify Editor
5
xlines
Nov 6, 2010 10:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by talcha2ted
Quote:
Originally posted by Zebrev
Men will never land Mars. It's obvious.
This is quite correct and can be derived from fundamental principles. Women, of course, will get there first!
LOL! High five! :)
Reply to this comment Offensive? Unsuitable? Notify Editor
6
reader01
Nov 6, 2010 1:31 PM
radiation protection
I think that if there will be any space rocket that use any kind of nuclear power motor than it will need radiation protection anyway.
Reply to this comment Offensive? Unsuitable? Notify Editor
7
jpivarski
Nov 6, 2010 3:47 PM
I bet five feet of concrete would do it...
... or as many inches of lead. It's just too bad it's hard to get heavy things into orbit (and accelerate/decelerate them). A shield made of heavy inert material might even be able to convert the radiation into a heat/power source, depending on the particle flux (typically MeV energies per particle from the sun).
Reply to this comment Offensive? Unsuitable? Notify Editor
8
reader01
Nov 7, 2010 12:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by jpivarski
... or as many inches of lead. It's just too bad it's hard to get heavy things into orbit (and accelerate/decelerate them). A shield made of heavy inert material might even be able to convert the radiation into a heat/power source, depending on the particle flux (typically MeV energies per particle from the sun).
Why only to use this solar particle as a source of heat? I think it is a good idea to use these particles for nuclear power energy for rocket. I know, it is your idea and not bad.
Reply to this comment Offensive? Unsuitable? Notify Editor
9
reader01
Nov 8, 2010 4:27 PM
I know this is not probably possible
But, is there any chance to explore mirrors as source of power at outer space? Or exist such mirrors ,shield, that can reflect radiation out of surface of rocket. I mean exist any such material??
Reply to this comment Offensive? Unsuitable? Notify Editor
10
jjeherrera
Nov 8, 2010 5:20 PM
Ciudad Universitaria, Mexico
Quote:
Hapgood and colleagues are currently working on an alternative technique that involves surrounding the spacecraft with a plasma shield to deflect incoming protons without creating secondary radiation. However, with the idea still in its infancy, Hapgood believes the chances of it being ready in time for Obama's 2030s Mars shot “strongly depends on future investment”.
The idea was actually proposed back in the 60's, but there hasn't been a strong motivation to pursue it. So it will definitely “strongly depends on future investment”.
Reply to this comment Offensive? Unsuitable? Notify Editor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)