Penny4NASA

ARKYD: The World’s First Publicly Accessible Space Telescope

Chealsye Bowley — Mon, 03 Jun 2013 16:05:15 +0000

Planetary Resources, an asteroid mining company, has launched an exciting new crowdfunding campaign to create the world’s first publicly accessible space telescope.

ARKYD, pronounced “ahrk-kid” according to its Kickstarter page, is a technologically advanced, orbiting space telescope. It has a large main optic, deployable solar panels, specialized communications antenna, an onboard screen, and a robotic arm, and is the size of carry-on suitcase. Chris Lewicki, President and Chief Engineer of Planetary Resources, introduced ARKYD as ”an idea to bring space within reach of everyone.” This project has the potential to make everyone citizen astronomers and scientists by providing the opportunity to search for potentially hazardous asteroids, inspect our solar system, and examine distant galaxies.

Douglas King, President of The Museum of Flight in Seattle, had this to say about the project:

“If I could have a young person here, and say, ‘Would you like to take a picture of Mars with a telescope that’s in space now? Would you like to see what you can find that nobody else has found before?’ That gets somebody involved and excited about what they can do, not what someone else can do.”

The goals of this Kickstarter project are to give students access to space capabilities, support important research and discovery, build excitement about space, and to give the public a say by putting control of the telescope in your hands. The ARKYD space telescope will also be the first in a series of satellites that will serve Planetary Resource’s primary mission of exploring and mining resource rich asteroids by helping them to identify asteroids of interest. The Kickstarter campaign was launched on March 29 with a goal of raising $1 million. At the time of posting, the campaign has already received $705,304 in funding from 7,422 backers. The campaign will run until June 30 at 10 p.m. EDT.

The campaign’s goal of $1 million will fund the launch of the telescope, the creation of the user interface, campaign backer benefits, and educational curriculum for students everywhere. Backers can pledge anywhere for $1 to $10,000 for the campaign with backer benefits starting at the $10 level. Benefits include access to photos, videos, and updates on the telescope and project ($10); pointing the telescope at any celestial object and taking an image of it ($200); making science and technology come alive for a classroom with ARKYD: + 10 Main Optic Observations that will be directed by the teacher and students ($1,750); and an invitation to sign the telescope before launch and get an asteroid the telescope discovers after you ($10,000). Currently the most popular benefit is the digital space selfie, a picture from the backer that will be captured on the satellite with the Earth in the background ($25).

Jason Silva, ARKYD supporter and host of Brain Games, said the following about the project in the campaign’s video: “I think the ARKYD 100 project really kind of embodies this idea of human beings exploring the parameters of possibility. This is what we do, we are wonder junkies. Support the ARKYD 100 project.”

Watch the campaign video below to learn more about how Planetary Resources is inventing the future with you.

To find out more about the project or to donate, visit the Kickstarter page.

The Spirit of Apollo

Kyle Sullivan — Thu, 30 May 2013 22:40:46 +0000

For the volunteers of Space Advocates, space is very important. It is not just a void of mostly emptiness beyond the Earth. To us, space & space travel is an investment in society and its economy. It is a cure for many of the issues that plague the world today. We know that the ROI (return-on-investment) for space-related adventures is good, and has varied historically from $8 to $14 per dollar spent depending on which time frame and economic study you are specifying. Importantly, the advancement of a space frontier is also an innovation generation engine. The race to the moon has produced many technological advancements that might not have existed otherwise and our continued presence in space is a source of such activity even today.

Innovation, technological advancement and a solid ROI get us Space Advocates excited about space, for sure. But the most important reason for going is not strictly economic and societal self-enrichment. In fact, the survival of our species depends greatly on a permanent human presence among the stars. Protecting our species in the long-term, from the environmental mood swings of our home world to the shooting gallery that is our solar system to the enormous cauldron of activity that is our star, is one of the most compelling reasons that Space Advocates exists. We want to go. We need to go.

Collectively, these reasons encompass the spirit of the Apollo Program from the 1960s. Naturally, John F. Kennedy is remembered for many things, but remembered by Space Advocates for so exactly personifying the spirit of Apollo in his advocacy of NASA. Take a look at our newest video, the Spirit of Apollo, and consider what raising the NASA budget from less than half a penny up to one full penny on each federal dollar spent can and will do for our economy, for our society and for our future. Join us and make your voice heard by writing Congress today. Watch our newest video below:

Titan: A Moon Like No Other

Zain Husain — Thu, 30 May 2013 04:50:55 +0000

Source

Mars has sparked the interest of many here on Earth, especially with the impressive landing of the Curiosity rover last year. But there’s another planet-like moon by the name of Titan, which is perhaps even more intriguing. It’s Saturn’s largest moon and is about 50% bigger than Earth’s moon or 40% larger than Mercury. There are other moons that have peaked the interest of the scientific community like the famous Jovian moons such as Europa, Callisto or Ganymede. However, Titan is the only moon in the Solar System that has an atmosphere. It even has liquid lakes and landscape features that look a lot like Earth’s. Recently, a Cassini flyby occurred on May 23 and before diving into the new exciting news, here are a few details on the importance of Titan, the amazing story of the Cassini-Huygens mission, and the latest exciting news on the flyby.

Why is Titan So Important?

Source

Well to get a better understanding of why Titan is important let’s review some quick stats on it.

Titan is about 5,150 km across (including its dense atmosphere) and is the second largest moon in our solar system after Ganymede.
It has hundreds of times more liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth.
Titan is basically a giant factory of organic chemicals. It has seas of methane and ethane that is at least larger than any one of the Great Lakes in North America.
The gravity on Titan is actually 0.14 g or slightly less than the gravity experienced on Earth’s moon.
Where it takes Earth 23 hours 56 minutes and 45 seconds to rotate once, it takes Titan 15 days 23 hours 15 minutes and 31 seconds. And one year on Titan is equals to 30 Earth years.
Titan has no magnetic field.
Temperature on Titan is a frigid -179 degrees Celsius.
Large areas are covered with sand dunes made of hydrocarbon.

First images of Titan taken by Voyager 1 in 1980 Source

Now there are at least a few reasons why Titan is so important. One reason is exploring a moon like no other that has the similar makeup of what Earth or Venus might have been like 4 billion years ago. Robert Zubrin pointed out that Titan has a copious amount of all the elements needed to support life. If you think about it the atmosphere subsumes plentiful amounts of nitrogen and methane, and the liquid water and ammonia that is currently under the surface are spewed up by the volcanic activity. Water can easily be used to generate breathable oxygen. Nitrogen is perfect to add buffer gas partial pressure to breathable air – let’s not forget that Earth’s atmosphere is in fact made up of 78% nitrogen. What’s more, nitrogen, methane and ammonia can all be used to produce fertilizer for growing food. It’s amazing that such a moon exists in the Solar System and excites the mind that there could be life on Titan one day (or maybe there already is who knows!).

Continue to The Story of the Cassini-Huygens Mission…

New Horizons Probe to Explore Uncharted Territory in 2015

Dylan Schweitzer — Wed, 22 May 2013 22:51:49 +0000

Launched in January 2006, the New Horizons probe will be the first to explore the binary system of Pluto-Charon, making it the fifth probe to traverse interplanetary space so far from the sun. After extensive study there, New Horizons will visit objects in the Kuiper Belt region beyond Neptune.

Charon’s orbit is shown in green. Pluto’s orbit is shown in red. This shows Pluto orbiting a point outside of itself, making Pluto-Charon a binary system.

Pluto-Charon is described as a binary system since Charon, one of Pluto’s moons, is half the size of Pluto and the center of gravity which it orbits is outside of Pluto itself. Therefore, neither body truly orbits the other making them a binary system, meaning that each body orbits the same center of gravity. The New Horizons mission will mark the first opportunity to study such objects.

There are three zones that comprise the Solar System. First are the terrestrial planets, which are the four nearest to the sun, and are composed primarily of rock and metals. Second are the gas giants, which consist of the remaining four planets and are significantly more massive than the terrestrials. And the third is the Kuiper Belt, which is comprised of various celestial bodies that do not qualify as planets. This third region remains largely unexplored, but the New Horizons probe will be the first mission that’s been specifically designed to fill the knowledge gap regarding the Kuiper Belt.

The ice dwarfs in this region of the Solar System are “planetary embryos.” Their growth stopped at sizes much smaller than any of the other planets in the Solar System, which accumulated into these types of objects over long periods of time. The studies of New Horizons will provide much insight into planetary formation due to what is already known about the process.

It is also known that the Kuiper Belt is the source of many cometary impactors on Earth, most notably the impactor that caused the dinosaurs to go extinct. Through the study of craters on Pluto, its moons, and other Kuiper Belt objects, it will hopefully provide a better idea regarding how many threatening impactors currently exist.

New Horizons will also provide insights into Earth’s atmosphere in a unique way. Right now, the atmosphere on Pluto is escaping into space, and it is believed that Earth’s original atmosphere of hydrogen and helium was lost to space in a similar fashion. Therefore, whatever new information is learned about Pluto’s atmosphere will be enlightening about the evolution of Earth’s atmosphere.

Since 2005, four moons have been discovered aside from Charon that orbit Pluto. Two of these moons were discovered after New Horizons had already launched, and caused a great deal of initial fear. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory have been studying these discoveries, and have mostly completed their analysis: New Horizons should still be safe. The best models predict a 0.3 percent chance of critical impact, or a 1-in-300 chance.

New Horizons is expected to arrive at the Pluto-Charon system in July 2015. The overall cost of the mission is approximately $650 million, spread over 15 years, from 2001 to 2016.

JPL’s New Horizons “Why Go to Pluto?” page: http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/overview/whyGo.php

NASA’s New Horizons “Missions” page: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/newhorizons/main/index.html

“New Horizons: Encounter Planning Accelerates”: http://www.planetary.org/blogs/guest-blogs/2013/20130520-new-horizons-encounter-planning-accelerates.html

“Pluto’s seasons and what New Horizons may find when it passes by”: http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2013/05021212-plutos-seasons-new-horizons.html

To learn why New Horizons will be able to view Pluto with better detail than Hubble: http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2013/02141014-hubble-galaxy-pluto.html

What If?: NASA and the Budget Woes

Curtiss Thompson — Tue, 21 May 2013 03:42:33 +0000

(Photo Credit: NASA/Bill Ingalls)

Guest author Jeannette Remak is the founder of Phoenix Aviation Research. She is a military aviation historian, researcher and author. In addition to writing articles for the Atlantic Flyer and the Air Force Association, she’s also published a number of books including her most recent book, “NASA and the Shuttle Shuffle.” She is also an accomplished artist, with her paintings a part of the U.S. Air Force Art Collection

I think all of us out there play the game of “What if?” Our space program is currently going through a bad case of the “what ifs.” What if NASA doesn’t get more money for the budget? What if the Russians won’t accept the contract on the table for $70 million to train and haul our astronauts back and forth to the International Space Station? The biggest “what if” has to do with the 2014 budget for NASA. What if there just isn’t enough money to keep our manned spaceflight program alive or any other NASA program for that matter?

As we look around at other nations, including China, Japan, North Korea and Iran, they are all working on their space programs and sparing no expense in doing so. Yet, the United States is not. Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, one of the most powerful Democrats in the Senate, is asking a big “what if” concerning NASA’s 2014 budget and how to sustain the U.S. space program.

In a recent interview with Aviation Week, Sen. Mikulski said, “NASA’s mission faltering or sputtering really can blow the whole program.” Why is that? The 2014 budget allows for $17.7 billion in funding and NASA is hoping desperately that Congress might cut them some slack and award them something more substantial.

Artist concept of SLS launching (Photo Credit: NASA)

NASA is trying to build the Space Launch System, which is a heavy lift rocket that will allow us to leave low-Earth orbit and head the United States space program out towards the moon or an asteroid capture. Back in the days of the Apollo program, and partly to fulfill the legacy of beloved President John F. Kennedy, money flowed like water into the NASA coffers. We were able to build the magnificent Saturn V rocket that hurled us to the moon. Today, we struggle to complete the preliminary design work for the SLS. NASA would need a minimum of $800 million to allow competitors to stay in the race and build a possible commercial vehicle that would allow the United States to get to the ISS on our own without the help of the Russians. However, some in Congress would like to see some of those funds switched over to other programs like the SLS.

The poor logic to that move is that while we may have a heavy lift vehicle some day, the Ares I capsule that should have been aboard that heavy lift rocket has been canceled. What would we fly on that heavy lift vehicle? Should we continue to support the NASA Commercial Crew Program, which may one day provide us with a vehicle capable of getting astronauts to the ISS, but nothing more. Or should we direct those funds toward the Orion space capsule, which is designed to take astronauts beyond low-Earth orbit and into deep space. Looking back at how the Apollo program was directed, NASA held in their hands the money and the wherewithal to get to the moon. And yes, they got there on time!

The Space Shuttle Program, while a successful program in many respects, cost money to upkeep. Yet, money was reallocated from the safety program—as we found out after the Columbia disaster—to support the construction of the ISS. Just what sort of problem do we have here:

Is NASA unable to manage its money, leaving Congress reluctant to grant more?
Is NASA caught in the middle of pork barrel politics?
Is there mismanagement between Congress, NASA and the Bureau of Budgets?

The list could go on. However, what needs to happen is NASA needs to be allowed to restructure itself so that it can maintain the programs necessary to keep the United States in the forefront of space exploration. NASA is attempting to work with a “stone knives and bearskins” budget that allows them to only minimally maintain what programs they do have running. The budget doesn’t allow NASA much in the line of speculation or exploration. It doesn’t allow NASA to keep to the high standards it is used to. The Obama administration doesn’t seem to understand the need or nature of the U.S. manned space program, and that is putting this country in peril. There are sharks like North Korea and Iran, and they are circling the waters with heavy lift rockets for their fledging space programs, while the United States is nowhere near completing the SLS.

With an expanded budget, NASA would be able to bring their portfolio of missions back to a sustainable level. Our manned spaceflight program would be able to stand on its own once again. Instead of having to spend money to hitch a ride to the ISS, NASA would be able to control its own destiny in taking part in the ISS fully. NASA would once again be able to sustain the most important part of American history. NASA needs to be reestablished as the premier agency it once was and be able to sustain its robotic and research programs that allow it to go beyond the ISS and out into real space. Attention needs to be paid to raising the pittance of a budget that NASA is receiving, to allow it to dream and make those dreams a reality instead of wasting time scratching for every dime at budget time.

It is time to fund NASA reasonably and with thought to allow the United States to surpass every nation in space as we once did. We need to make space a priority again, and not just a backhanded thought.

NASA to Pay $70 Million a Seat to Fly Astronauts on Soyuz

Jesse Zakshesky — Fri, 17 May 2013 01:37:25 +0000

On July 8, 2011, Americans witnessed the launch of STS-135, the 135th and final mission of the Space Shuttle Program. Since the completion of the Space Shuttle Program, NASA has relied upon the Russian Space Agency, Roscosmos, for the launch and safe return of astronauts to and from the International Space Station aboard its Soyuz spacecraft. In spite of ISS operations being a collaborative effort between multiple space agencies around the world, it’s ironic that NASA — who is responsible for a large chunk of the funding and administration for the space station — has to rely upon an expensive Soyuz “taxi ride” in order to send American astronauts into space.

Empty status board in the Vehicle Assembly Building

Hoping that an American-based commercial alternative would be available by 2015 under the Commercial Crew Program, NASA had an original contract with Roscosmos at roughly $62.7 million per seat aboard a Soyuz spacecraft. However, because of the failure on Congress’ part to fully fund the CCP at optimum levels, that goal has been made impossible. Still requiring a means to transport Americans to and from the ISS, on April 30, NASA was forced to extend that contract until 2017.

This extension also comes at a price. The price of one Soyuz seat now requires NASA to pay Roscosmos approximately $8 million more, at $70.7 million per seat. This deal effectively bought NASA six seats to the ISS until 2016, with return and rescue guarantees on those voyages until 2017.

The Obama administration in his FY2012 and FY2013 budget proposals has requested $850 million and $830 million, respectively. What Congress ultimately approved, however, was far less — $406 million and $489 million, respectively

In a statement on his blog, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden voiced his concerns:

“Because the funding for the President’s plan has been significantly reduced, we now won’t be able to support American launches until 2017. Even this delayed availability will be in question if Congress does not fully support the President’s fiscal year 2014 request for our Commercial Crew Program, forcing us once again to extend our contract with the Russians. Further delays in our Commercial Crew Program and its impact on our human spaceflight program are unacceptable. That’s why we need the full $821 million the President has requested in next year’s budget to keep us on track to meet our 2017 deadline and bring these launches back to the United States.”

If that budgetary request is not granted, it is very likely that NASA — still requiring a means to get astronauts to the ISS — would be forced to extend the contract with Roscosmos once again, beyond 2017, and be obligated to pay even more for a seat aboard a Soyuz.

SpaceX’s Dragon spacecraft approaching the ISS

To date, there has been great progress with commercial space agencies. SpaceX, for example, which was contracted by NASA to carry out 12 missions to the ISS, has already completed two. However, the lower-than-expected requested funding for the CCP is the main reason why the extension with Roscosmos was required in the first place.

Because we require a three-year lead time from Roscosmos to construct Soyuz spacecraft, NASA has to plan accordingly. If the CCP had been funded at the original requested level — meaning that a commercial space agency would be ready to transport Americans into space — NASA likely would have been ready to end reliance on Soyuz trips in 2015. Instead, underfunded budgets have forced delays in the readiness of the CCP.

Kirk Shireman, NASA’s deputy space station program manager, had this to say to a NASA advisory committee:

“All of our top risks are budgetary now. We’re very worried, from a budget standpoint, about commercial crew and Soyuz. Today, there is no budget for commercial crew and Soyuz. … We don’t want to be in a situation where we can no longer have U.S. crew members on-board ISS because we didn’t buy any more Soyuz and commercial crew isn’t ready.”

Barring any further contract extensions required with Roscosmos, NASA should be able to contract a large majority of its missions to the ISS via American-based commercial space companies, which would enable increased funding to be put towards missions with a scope outside of low-Earth orbit.

Tell Congress that you support fully funding the Commercial Crew Program and that you want to end NASA’s dependence on expensive Soyuz trips: http://www.penny4nasa.org/take-action/

Poll: Americans Overwhelmingly Support Doubling NASA’s Budget, Mission To Mars

Curtiss Thompson — Wed, 15 May 2013 18:45:00 +0000

The American public overwhelmingly support a doubling of NASA’s budget in order to fund a mission to Mars, according to a recent survey. The poll, commissioned by Explore Mars, a nonprofit organization, and aerospace contractor Boeing, also demonstrated a high degree of enthusiasm about human exploration of Mars.

Support for doubling NASA’s budget

The survey found that 76 percent of Americans agree that NASA’s budget should be increased to 1 percent of the total federal budget to fund initiatives, including a mission to Mars. Currently NASA’s budget represents less than 0.5 percent of overall federal spending.

Poll respondents said they think a manned mission to Mars should be the country’s top priority in space exploration. The poll also showed that, in spite of the current budgetary climate, Americans remain very optimistic about the prospect of putting humans on Mars within the next two decades, with 71 percent saying they expect it will happen by 2033.

And while NASA does have a goal for a manned mission to Mars by 2033, a recent report by the National Research Council found that NASA lacks the funding and strategic direction needed to achieve their goals. The committee behind the report laid blame on both the executive and legislative branches for failing to establish a clear vision for the future of American space exploration.

NASA has repeatedly argued that they lack the funding necessary to accomplish their many goals and have called on Congress to increase their budget. As NASA Administrator Charles Bolden recently explained to the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, the reason the agency is favoring a manned mission to an asteroid over the moon is because “going to the moon is a factor of three (times) more expensive.” Bolden told the committee bluntly that Congress has not given NASA enough money to return humans to the moon.

With both missions viewed as natural precursors to a manned mission to Mars, many in Congress remain skeptical of the Obama administration’s goal of sending astronauts to an asteroid, instead wanting the drama of manned missions to the moon. Between the politics surrounding NASA’s budget and each presidential administration changing the course of American space exploration, NASA is stuck trying to accomplish both goals on an ever diminishing budget.

This corresponds with what poll respondents reported, saying the biggest barriers to a manned mission to Mars are politics and affordability. Chris Carberry, executive director of Explore Mars, agrees that the greatest obstacle to the goal of putting humans on Mars is the lack of political leadership on the issue, saying, “We hope that this poll can serve a catalyst to reinforce what Americans already support and encourage our nation’s leaders that this is not the time to retreat.”

The poll was conducted by global communications firm Phillips & Company between Feb. 4 and Feb. 6, 2013 surveying a random sample of 1,101 respondents and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Read the full report here:
http://www.exploremars.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Mars-Generation-Survey-full-report-March-7-2013.pdf

Mapping The Moon: The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter’s Mission To Return Humans To The Moon

Randall Nall — Mon, 13 May 2013 13:39:21 +0000

On June 18, 2009, a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket took off from Launch Complex 41 at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, carrying with it the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. The LRO’s initial goal was simple exploration of the moon, though after one year it switched to a science phase under the Science Mission Directorate of NASA. On the orbiter are a variety of instruments designed to help NASA better understand the Earth’s moon, including tools for creating day-night temperature maps, detecting UV radiation, and creating high resolution color images of its surface. Although the LRO is capable of collecting a wide range of data about our satellite, there’s an emphasis on learning more about the moon’s polar regions, where constant exposure to sunlight is possible and a chance exists for liquid water to be found in the permanently shadowed regions.

It is hoped that exploration data from the LRO can be used to find better landing sites, paving the way for the return of manned trips to the moon and, ultimately, lunar outposts. As such, the LRO marks the first effort to create a complete map of all of the moon’s resources and geography. Because an outpost would also imply humans spending prolonged periods of time on the surface of the moon, the LRO is being used to identify resources on the moon and determine how the moon’s radiation-filled environment will affect us.

Here’s a brief breakdown of the seven devices that the LRO has been equipped with:

Cosmic Ray Telescope for the Effects of Radiation (CRaTER): CRaTER’s purpose is to detect radiation in the space around the moon where the shielding effects of the Earth’s atmosphere and magnetic field are gone. It also has a scanner that is covered by a special plastic that reacts to radiation in the same way that human muscle tissue does, allowing researchers to observe the effects of deep space radiation on susceptible bone marrow. Recent results from CRaTER indicate that while high-energy cosmic rays from deep space known as HZE particles make up only about 1% of the radiation in the lunar environment, they carry about 50% of the total energy from radiation. Below is a picture of the CRaTER flight model before being attached to the LRO.

The CRaTER module separate from the LRO.
Image source: http://crater.sr.unh.edu/instrument.shtml

Diviner Lunar Radiometer Experiment (DLRE): The DLRE is responsible for creating thermal maps, measuring and mapping the temperatures of both the moon’s surface and subsurface from LRO’s orbit. This data can be used to spot hazardous cold spots as well as deposits of ice on the moon. Researchers are also able to use these maps to find rocks and other rough terrains on the surface to help avoid dangerous landing zones. Below are graphics showing the first set of comprehensive day- and night-time thermal maps of the lunar surface.

Day and night thermal maps of the lunar surface from DLRE.
Image source: http://www.diviner.ucla.edu/

Lyman Alpha Mapping Project (LAMP): The LAMP instrument is used to create maps of the lunar surface using ultraviolet light. Creating maps using UV light will help to point out ice pockets in the darkest areas of the moon—craters near the poles where sunlight never reaches. Setting up a lunar base near these pockets would obviously be ideal as it increases the availability of liquid water for human occupants. LAMP will also help detect other minerals on the moon as well as study the composition of the moon’s almost nonexistent atmosphere. The image below, showing LAMP data from the south pole, suggests the possibility of miniscule amounts of ice in a shadowed crater on the moon’s surface. The top inset shows the pole using a far-ultraviolet wavelength that is absorbed by ice; the darkened craters then hint at the presence of frozen water. In the bottom inset, a longer wavelength of far-ultraviolet light is used, which frost reflects. The reddening in the image (which shows up in green) is also consistent with the presence of ice. Researchers say that these results indicate that permanently shadowed regions on the moon could contain as much as 2% frozen water, a surprising result considering that it was previously believed that interplanetary Lyman-Alpha radiation would destroy any ice before it could accumulate on a surface.

LAMP data from the south pole, suggests the possibility of miniscule amounts of ice in a shadowed crater on the moon’s surface. The top inset shows the pole using a far-ultraviolet wavelength that is absorbed by ice; the darkened craters then hint at the presence of frozen water. In the bottom inset, a longer wavelength of far-ultraviolet light is used, which frost reflects.
Image source: http://www.swri.org/9what/releases/2012/lamp.htm

Lunar Exploration Neutron Detector (LEND): LEND is designed to create maps of the hydrogen distribution across the lunar surface as well as helping to measure the lunar radiation environment. LEND is another way of searching for water ice on the lunar surface. It accomplishes both of these goals by measuring the velocities of neutrons that are released from molecules and atoms on the lunar surface when they are bombarded by high-energy cosmic rays. Since the neutrons can be slowed down and sometimes absorbed by other elements in the lunar soil, the velocities of these particles can be used to get an idea of the atomic composition of the moon’s surface. Ideally, LEND researchers hope to see an increase in hydrogen concentration in the previously mentioned lunar craters, possibly hinting at the presence of water ice. Results from LEND, below, show the overall levels of neutron emission at the lunar surface. Dark blue regions depict neutron suppressed regions (NSRs), which are the result of increased levels of hydrogen in those areas. Elevated hydrogen could correlate with the presence of water in one form or another.

Results from LEND, showing the overall levels of neutron emission at the lunar surface. Dark blue regions depict neutron suppressed regions (NSRs), which are the result of increased levels of hydrogen in those areas.
Image source: http://the-moon.wikispaces.com/LEND

Lunar Orbiter Laser Altimeter (LOLA): LOLA’s goal is to provide the most comprehensive topographical map of the moon by measuring things like surface roughness and potential landing area slopes in order to create a detailed 3-D map of the moon. LOLA operates by firing laser light at the lunar surface and measuring the time it takes for them to return to determine elevation as well as how much weaker the returning light is in order to calculate how much of it was diffused by rough terrain. LOLA’s surface elevation data can also be used to identify the areas of the moon that will be permanently illuminated or darkened. The map below, one of the first comprehensive maps of the moon’s surface contours, shows just how rough and jagged the surface can be. The dark blue areas represent lower elevations while the red and purple areas are higher.

One of the first comprehensive maps of the moon’s surface contours. The dark blue areas represent lower elevations while the red and purple areas are higher.
Image source: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43371122/#.UXiX48prWGw

Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC): Perhaps the simplest tool on the LRO, LROC’s job is to capture high resolution black and white photos of the lunar surface, with a resolution down to 1 meter.. It also captures color images in the visible and ultraviolet light spectrums. LROC will help to judge the degree to which the lunar poles are illuminated as well as helping to identify ideal landing sites. LROC’s data will also be overlapped with panoramic images from the Apollo era, identifying small impacts that have occurred since the early 1970s. Click the link below to go to an image of the Apollo 12 landing site photographed by LROC (slightly high resolution, slower connections beware).

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/584398main_M168353795RE_25cm_AP12_area.jpg

Mini-RF Technology Demonstration: The Mini-RF, which stands for miniature radio frequency, uses radar technology to map out the polar regions of the moon by imaging strips of the surface as it passes over. Mini-RF collects image strips 5 miles wide by 290 miles long and combines them into mosaics of the moon’s polar regions (see below). The Mini-RF device on the LRO works in conjunction with a similar device on India’s Chandrayaan-1 lunar orbiter to identify and focus on areas that are deemed potentially significant to the quest to uncover the secrets of permanently shadowed areas of the poles.

Mosaic images of the moon’s poles taken by the Mini-RF module.
Image source: http://www.usra.edu/news/features/2011/minisar/images/29_2.jpg

The LRO is set to continue collecting scientific data about the moon until 2015. With the promising results already obtained, we can eagerly expect the orbiter to continue uncovering new and exciting things about our familiar night light.

Learn more about the LRO and its instruments on NASA’s site (follow the links to each instrument’s official site for more detailed information): http://lro.gsfc.nasa.gov/spacecraft.html

Nuclear Thermal Rockets, an old propulsion system that may be the future for space exploration

Rob Eubank — Sat, 11 May 2013 04:19:04 +0000

To achieve any measure of space travel there is one tool that has always been indispensable, rockets. Rockets have been the primary tool for sending spacecraft into orbit and accelerating them beyond Earth orbit to other planets in the solar system, and for a few craft, on their way out to the rest of the galaxy.

Despite the amazing advances in rocket technology since the days of Apollo, NASA still is forced to rely on chemical combustion to propel vehicles off Earth and to space destinations in a relatively short time period. Chemical rocket engines, while producing a lot of thrust, are highly inefficient and very dangerous as several rocket accidents in the past have proven. Electrical propulsion is a useful alternative for long-term small probes due to its high efficiency, but it produces very low thrust and is not useful for shorter-term manned missions.

Many theoretical concepts for high efficiency and high thrust propulsion offer a tantalizing view for how space travel in the future might work, but for now such concepts are technically unfeasible. There is, however, an option in between the future and now that uses existing technology. The best part is, it is an old idea.

Nuclear thermal rockets, or NTRs for short, are rocket engines that utilize a nuclear fission reactor to heat propellant instead of igniting combustible propellants. The advantages include much higher specific impulses due to a higher range of exhaust velocities that chemical rockets can’t achieve due to limits of the combustible fuels. The idea is surprisingly simple; take a nuclear reactor like the ones used for power generation today, but instead of using it to heat water into steam for power turbines, heat propellant instead and run it out of a rocket nozzle for thrust. This is the simplest form of NTR, which is called a solid core NTR. In fact, it is so simple it has already been done, just not in space.

Basic NERVA engine

In 1955, the Atomic Energy Commission started Project Rover, aimed at the development of engines utilizing nuclear technologies, which were in their prime in the 1950s in America. Four basic designs came from this and 20 rockets were tested, but the AEC work was intended to study the reactor design itself for rocket use, rather than actually build a rocket. In 1961, NASA began the Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Applications program, or NERVA for short, to formalize the entry of nuclear thermal engines into space exploration. In fact, it was President Kennedy’s hope that Project Rover and the NERVA program would be the next step after Apollo, stating such in his famous speech to a joint session of Congress establishing the goal of landing a man on the moon.

Directly comparing the performance of two different rocket systems is not simple however. There are ways in which chemical propulsion is better than nuclear and vice versa. The most basic form of solid core NTR provides much better specific impulse, a measure of how efficient a rocket is (think gas mileage), but doesn’t have comparable thrust. It also takes a lot of time to warm up a nuclear rocket and cool it down between firings, putting stress on the system. The best way around this is what is called a bimodal NTR, which uses the reactor to both provide rocket thrust and supply power to the spacecraft at the same time. The reactor is started up once and when rocket firings are done it is cooled down to regular operating levels and a Brayton power conversion system is used to supply the spacecraft with power. This employs a different working fluid through a turbine and a radiator to cool it. Thus the reactor only needs to be started up and shut off once per mission.

Pratt & Whitney Triton engine design. The large radiator at the top dissipates heat from the reactor.

An even better option is the trimodal NTR conceptualized by Pratt & Whitney. This takes the bimodal concept and adds another NTR concept referred to as LANTR, or LOX-augmented NTR, to make the Triton engine. The LANTR mode allows for more thrust by injecting liquid oxygen into the nozzle to act as an afterburner. This design then allows for a ship to have high thrust, high specific impulse, or power generation from one engine depending on the setting.

There are even more ambitious ideas for NTRs including liquid core and gas core engines, but they have never been built beyond the conceptual stage and present several new challenges among which is a high tendency of releasing radioactive elements into the exhaust. Solid core NTRs keep the radioactive elements away from the propellant, thus making them safer. However, all solid core tests such as NERVA resulted in engines with a thrust to weight ratio lower than one, meaning it could not lift a rocket off Earth.

The Discovery One from 2001: A Space Odyssey is said by Arthur C. Clarke to have Gas Core NTRs

This leads to the obvious fact that despite Kennedy’s high hopes and NASA’s research, nuclear engines never did get used for actual spacecraft. There is a complicated set of reasons for this including cost factor, various issues and most importantly public opinion. The growing public dissatisfaction with nuclear weapons and nuclear power by proxy as a result of the Cold War arms race and later accidents like Chernobyl made it a lot less likely that people would like the idea of a nuclear powered rocket flying, even if it could be safe. Today, nuclear weapon treaties forbid nuclear weapons in space, thus making ideas like Project Orion, which used full nuclear bombs for propulsion infeasible. Such treaties do not disallow nuclear reactors like what NERVA used however.

NASA has always wanted their vehicles to be safe and not cause harm to anyone. As such, the biggest issue with these engines is radiation. Fears of radioactive material dispersed into the atmosphere, or a nuclear explosion happening are common. However, despite the horrible accidents that have plagued nuclear reactors before, they are more safe than many realize and as stated above can be done so that no radioactive material leaves the nozzle. A nuclear explosion is highly unlikely since reactors are not designed to act like nuclear bombs and are more controlled. This aside though, the simplest option is to not use them in the atmosphere at all and make nuclear engines only for use in space, while using chemical engines to get to orbit. The only worry is a sub-orbital structural failure, but designs for the reactors are very robust, leaving it unlikely for radioactive material to be spread. As for fears of the reactor irradiating astronauts, there are ways of shielding them, but studies have shown that the shorter travel times NTRs allow result in less radiation exposure by passengers due to them spending less time in space exposed to cosmic radiation.

Continued research is still being done, in the 1970s a small nuclear engine was designed for possible use with the space shuttle in place of the Space Shuttle Main Engines. The design provided a theoretical specific impulse of 975 seconds, much greater than the 363 – 452 seconds of the SSME for only slightly less of the SSME mass fraction. It was clearly not chosen for the space shuttle however. Continued research under Project Timberwind as part of the Strategic Defense Initiative was done between 1987 and 1991, and in 2012 Icarus Interstellar and General Propulsion Sciences began a development project known as Project Bifrost to develop an NTR system for interplanetary missions.

This is not a reality yet, but it is a possible reality in the near future.

While it hasn’t been used yet despite all the research behind it, nuclear propulsion represents the next inevitable phase of rocket technology for space exploration and it can help humanity to unlock the solar system. With more research and funding NASA can help to improve this technology and make it safer. If you think NASA should continue to develop new innovative propulsion technologies like this, let Congress know: http://www.penny4nasa.org/take-action/

For more information on Nuclear Thermal Rockets, check out the pages below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Thermal_Rocket

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php#id–Nuclear_Thermal

http://news.discovery.com/space/private-spaceflight/icarus-interstellar-nerva-nuclear-fission-propulsion-space-exploration-130130.htm

Death, Beauty, and How’s that Space Program Going? The Impact Crater Story

Zain Husain — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 03:59:10 +0000

Impact craters are interesting marks left on Earth. For one it leaves us a beautiful lake or a massive indent on Earth. However, they should make you think twice about how our space program is actually doing. As my main man Neil deGrasse Tyson has been famously quoted on:

“If humans one day become extinct from a catastrophic collision, we would be the laughing stock of aliens in the galaxy”

It’s undeniably true. We would be the laughing stock of the galaxy if an asteroid wiped us all out because we didn’t invest into our space programs enough. However, I think George E. Brown said it best when he said:

“If some day in the future we discover well in advance that an asteroid that is big enough to cause a mass extinction is going to hit the Earth, and then we alter the course of that asteroid so that it does not hit us, it will be one of the most important accomplishments in all of human history.”

One argument is how many people have died from an asteroid or a meteor? Well there have only been a dozen recorded deaths from falling asteroids in the past four hundred years. There have been more deaths by plane crashes than asteroids really. Nevertheless, where plane crashes may kill around 100 people a year on average an asteroid can wipe out a billion people instantaneously and destroy the rest of the world in the wake of global climate disaster.

What Would Happen at Different Unwelcome Deposits of Energy

This was really interesting to see what would happen to Earth if we had been hit with enough energy by asteroids. I have taken this from Neil deGrasse Tyson’s book “Space Chronicles” where he got this information from a book called “Hazards Due to Comets and Asteroids”. Hopefully you aren’t an extremely anxious person because this is just terrifying.

10 – 100 Megatons of Energy

Nothing too serious here except that ten megatons of energy would explode in the atmosphere leaving no trace of it. The meteorites that would survive would be the iron based ones.

1,000 – 10,000 Megatons of Energy

Now it’s time to start getting a little nervous. An impact that would release this much energy will produce a crater the size of Delaware. I think the surfers would love to ride the massive tidal waves as a result…however survival rate for them or anyone else who gets hit by them would be very low.

100,000 – 1,000,000 Megatons of Energy

Take a deep breath. The result of an impact with this much energy would cause global destruction of ozone. The oceans would have tidal waves that would be as huge as an entire hemisphere! While on land the dust and matter that would get kicked up all the way into the stratosphere to alter Earth’s weather and freeze crops. The land impact would destroy an area the size of France!

10,000,000 – 100,000,000 Megatons of Energy

Nothing too spectacular except for the fact that this would result in prolonged climate change and just a global fire. Oh and this would leave a land impact the size of the continental United States.

100,000,000 – 1,000,000,000 Megatons of Energy

So remember the dinosaurs that used to roam around the Earth? Well this is what hit them basically. This would be a nightmare (not that any of the previous ones wouldn’t be either). This would lead to mass extinctions everywhere.

A Side Story

Just to give you a little more insight on when the last time an impact with the energy that wiped out the dinosaurs hit one of our planets in our solar system you can look as far back as 1994. While Kurt Cobain’s death was sweeping the United States and the world with melancholy, our friend Jupiter was hit by Shoemaker-Levy 9. Travelling at 200,000 km per hour, the comet broke off into pieces and slammed right into the Jovian atmosphere. Scars as big as Earth were left on Jupiter and this impact was the biggest explosion ever witnessed in history. Take a look and watch this.

Continue to Beautiful Disasters…