X-citing

We're heading to the coast now, so I shouldn't be blogging, but this is just cool. The X Prize Foundation is at it again, with $30 million in the kitty for whoever can put a robot on the moon. Note for the day: Incentives work, and they're especially positive things when there's no hint of government involvement about them.

Hat tip: Futurismic

And You Thought Hubble Was Impressive...

Over the years, we have seen some amazing, incredible, astounding, superlative-laden images coming from our valuable space friend, the Hubble Telescope. Hubble's had a few struggles, and has needed the occasional repair job, but it's also shown us things in space that have made us "ooh" and "aah" with childlike delight. One of the last missions of the soon-to-be-retired space shuttle will be to go out and give Hubble another much-needed tune-up. Thank you NASA, and keep the pictures coming. NASA, however, isn't resting on Hubble's laurels, and has bigger and better things in mind. The James Webb Space Telescope will someday be sending us pretty pictures from farther out in space than Hubble can peer, because NASA has figured out how to send up a mirror in folding segments, segments that will unfold once they get to their new home and outshine Hubble in the process. This, however, is just the beginning.

NASA has some even bigger plans, due to the development of a new rocket, the Ares V, which will be able to take payloads of 284,000 pounds off this pretty blue ball we call home. With the Ares V, NASA could send mirrors (the main part that makes all that telescoping possible) of over 8 meters into space--no folding required. The mere mention of 8-meter-mirrors may not convey much information to us non-scientist types, but all those jaw-dropping pictures from Hubble come courtesy of a mirror that's only 2.4 meters wide. According to NASA, we're looking at the possibility of telescopes with three times the resolution of Hubble, and the ability to see things that are eleven times fainter than what Hubble can detect right now, because the mirror's surface area will be eleven times greater. I'm not sure how that works mathematically, or scientifically, or any other kind of "ically," but since that won't stop me from enjoying the pictures and the knowledge we gain from the new super space-viewing toy, I'm prepared to forgo any concern I might have at being so dependant upon Smart People for all the really cool space stuff, and simply to be grateful that Smart People exist.

Follow the link to the NASA article to read all about their plans. If you want to expand your brain a bit, click on this "Lagrange point" link for an explanation of 18th-century mathematician Josef Lagrange's discovery of "parking" spots in space, spots where the pull of the Sun and the pull of the Earth conspire together to keep satellites firmly in place. NASA intends to use these spots to the fullest, and fill up the parking lot with various and sundry telescopes, all searching the heavens for new and vital spacey information, and more jaw-dropping pictures. The information is cool and all, and I'm glad that the Smart People have ways to collect and use it, but if you ask me, the best part is the pictures.

The Space Plane

Europe's biggest aerospace company, EADS, is looking to ferry tourists out into space, for brief little jaunts that will take an hour-and-a-half round trip, and give passengers the thrill of about a minute-and-a-half of weightlessness. Peter B. de Selding, at MSNBC, says that EADS has spent a couple of years designing the vehicle that they hope will take passengers up, up and away--100 kilometers up to be exact. They've got the combination rocket-plane all planned out, and they're looking for investors to get the ball rolling, hoping to start with a fleet of five and go on from there. Once the money's on board the fun can begin.

If you've got big hopes about your own future space travel, here's a way to indulge that dream. Now, the trip could cost somewhere in the $267,000 range per person, so there's a couple ways you could go about it. The first is by saving every penny, foregoing home ownership, higher education, dinners out, high speed Internet, car maintenance (you can make this possible by not owning a car in the first place), electricity, heating oil, new socks, toothpicks, etc, etc. The second way is a bit simpler; you could just start out rich in the first place. It's your call, of course, but I suspect the latter plan has a better chance of succeeding.

For those of us who don't think it would be worth sacrificing our whole lives for a minute-and-a-half of dream fulfillment, this rocket-plane plan is still actually a pretty cool potential development. Private space tourism may start out as something fit for a segment on Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, but it's all that rich-people money that will make the Technological Law of Gravity kick in, so that the price comes down and someday the rest of us can go for a ride. Even better, by the time that the average Joe can afford it, the technology will have improved dramatically, and it won't be just a quick trip out to lose your lunch, followed immediately by a return to Terra Firma. By the time the rich people have all payed for the R&D on space planes, there could very possibly be space hotels and giant space stations and the like, and lunar colonies might even be making their debut, making the trip into space much more destination-oriented. The well-to-do are really doing us a favor on this one. They'll go ride on the kiddie coaster, 100 kilometers up, all the while funding the Colossus for the rest of us--space proper. I say, "Go for it, Rich People. Go twice, even. Have fun, and tell us all about it." After all, didn't passenger trains and automobiles and airplanes all start out as rich-people-only clubs? Just wait. The rest of us will get our shot, as long as companies like EADS meet with success in these early ventures. Here's wishing them high flights and higher profits!!

Hat tip: Instapundit

Hey, I Was Right!!

It's not often that I feel the need to quote myself, but I predicted something scientific and space-related that might actually turn out to be true, and now I have to revel in my brief moment of rightness. Back in July of 2006, I read a report from NASA that the Cassini spacecraft had found evidence for lakes of liquid methane on Titan, one of Saturn's moons. I took a mental leap--not a huge one for the real sciency types, but a respectable leap for me:

Scientists will continue to observe the areas, looking for evidence like changes in size, or surface roughness stirred by winds, to indicate whether they've guessed correctly. If they're right, Titan is "the only body in the solar system besides Earth known to possess lakes." Not exactly the place you'd want to go for a summer vacation. One usually heads to a lake for fresh air and exercise, but Titan's not really a fresh air environment, is it? All that methane and ethane might make it a little hard to head out for a hike, or row a canoe, wouldn't you say? What a shame; it would be such an adventure to head to a lakeside cabin off-world. Oh well, there's got to be a bright side, right? Hmmm, liquid methane...liquid methane...sounds like a possible built-in fuel depot to me. That's it!! Titan can be the gas station on the way to some other cool vacation spot that we'll discover any day now. It's not quite as fun as finding Shangri-La on some other planet, but it will have to do.

My big prediction, somewhat flippantly expressed, was that someday Titan's lakes could fuel our journeys to other exciting destinations. Guess what? NASA thinks I'm right!! Well, okay, NASA doesn't know anything about me and my little bloggy predictions, but I can at least say that NASA agrees with me. NASA is testing a methane rocket engine, hoping to take advantage of the abundance of methane just waiting to be harvested from our neighboring planets. Patrick Barry, writing at NASA's Science website, says that methane engines "could eventually be key to deep space exploration."

Some of the advantages to the methane engine include the fact that liquid methane can be stored at a higher temperature than liquid hydrogen (the current fuel of choice for the soon-to-be-retired space shuttle.) This would mean less insulation, and thus less weight to haul off of planet Earth. Liquid methane, according to Barry, is also denser than liquid hydrogen, which would make the fuel tanks smaller, lighter and, ultimately, cheaper. Barry quotes project manager Terri Tramel of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center as adding safety to the list of methane's perks:

Methane also gets high marks for human safety. While some rocket fuels are potentially toxic, "methane is what we call a green propellant," Tramel says. "You don't have to put on a HAZMAT suit to handle it like fuels used on many space vehicles."

Here's the gravy, though, as far as the NASA-proving-me-right part of this little self-congratulatory post goes. In our solar system, methane is basically ubiquitous, so rockets wouldn't have to carry fuel for the whole journey along with them. They could pick some up along the way:

But the key attraction for methane is that it exists or can be made on many worlds that NASA might want to visit someday, including Mars.

Although Mars is not rich in methane, methane can be manufactured there via the Sabatier process: Mix some carbon dioxide (CO2) with hydrogen (H), then heat the mixture to produce CH4 and H20--methane and water. The Martian atmosphere is an abundant source of carbon dioxide, and the relatively small amount of hydrogen required for the process may be brought along from Earth or gathered in situ from Martian ice.

Traveling further out in the solar system, methane becomes even easier to come by. On Saturn's moon Titan, it is literally raining liquid methane. Titan is dotted with lakes and rivers of methane and other hydrocarbons that could one day serve as fuel depots. Imagine, a methane-powered rocket could allow a robotic probe to land on the surface of Titan, gather geological samples, refill its tanks, and blast off to return those samples to Earth. Such a sample-return mission from the outer solar system has never been attempted.

The atmospheres of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune all contain methane, and Pluto has frozen methane ice on its surface. New kinds of missions to these worlds may become possible with methane rockets.

So, Titan may well turn out to be an interplanetary gas station, as well as a geological destination-of-interest in its own right. Speaking of destinations-of-interest, head over to the NASA article if you want to watch the video of the new rocket in action in the Mojave desert. It's way cool, and downright pretty, with this really impressive blue flame. They're still working on the project, with tweaks to be done before a methane-fueled rocket can blast off the launchpad, heading for fabulous holiday destinations like the Lakes of Titan, but the pretty blue test was a promising start.

The best part of all this scientific and spacey advancement, from my perspective? I got to be right! (Hey, cut me some slack. It doesn't happen that often.)

More Nano Power!!

Last week I told you all about the thrilling new nanotechnology development that may soon let your walking shoes power your iPod. It was such an exciting thing to learn that I know that you are dying to find out what else is going on in the wonderful world of nanotech. The yearning for more nano-knowledge is probably gnawing at you even now, and you feel very much like the desperate person who has been given a single tantalizing bite of cheesecake, only to see the rest of the delightful dessert accidentally upended onto an anthill. The suffering is, no doubt, intense. I simply can't be responsible for that kind of discomfort. The mere thought pains me, so today I will ease our mutual misery by bringing you news of yet another new nanoventure, only this one will be "better, stronger, faster," like Steve Austin after the upgrade. Last week's nanopower invention could run a cellphone; today's nanopower invention could possibly run satellites, or other spacecraft.

Our old friends, carbon nanotubes, having achieved near-universal-usefulness status with their extreme strength and lightness, are trying to further their foothold on ubiquity, by making their way into the realm of solar power. John Toon, writing at Georgia Tech Research News, explains how 3D solar cells, constructed using carbon nanotubes, could change the shape of solar, and thus of spacecraft power:

Unique three-dimensional solar cells that capture nearly all of the light that strikes them could boost the efficiency of photovoltaic (PV) systems while reducing their size, weight and mechanical complexity.

The new 3D solar cells capture photons from sunlight using an array of miniature "tower” structures that resemble high-rise buildings in a city street grid. The cells could find near-term applications for powering spacecraft, and by enabling efficiency improvements in photovoltaic coating materials, could also change the way solar cells are designed for a broad range of applications.

“Our goal is to harvest every last photon that is available to our cells,” said Jud Ready, a senior research engineer in the Electro-Optical Systems Laboratory at the Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI). “By capturing more of the light in our 3D structures, we can use much smaller photovoltaic arrays. On a satellite or other spacecraft, that would mean less weight and less space taken up with the PV system.”

You caught how the 3D nature of the little solar towers catches more of the light, right? Not only is there more surface area to absorb the photons, but the grid "traps" the light, rather than letting it bounce off the surface, as occurs now with standard solar panels. Light can bounce within the towers, allowing the new system to capture more of the photons--"virtually all of the light that strikes them." The towers also absorb sunlight coming from any angle, so the sun doesn't have to be directly overhead for peak efficiency. In fact, according to Ready, these towers become more efficient when the Sun's light isn't coming directly at them.

Satellites could see a major upgrade as a result of this directional versatility. Since their solar panels would no longer have to face the light directly, the mechanisms wouldn't have to be in place to turn them all day long, like a giant photon-collecting rotisserie. This is a big improvement. The Air Force, aware of the advantage this new system could provide, has been funding some of the research related to this project. Satellites that don't need extra bells and whistles to keep their solar collectors turned to where the Sun shines could be smaller, lighter, and cheaper than their ancestors. ("Smaller, lighter, cheaper" is the carbon nanotube addendum to "better, stronger, faster.") All of the above applies to other Sun-fueled spacecraft as well. Probes, cameras, space stations, commercial spaceliners and space hotels could all benefit from harvesting more of those useful photons emanating from the Sun.

Space isn't the only place where this technology could improve photon collection. Earthly solar panels could get a big boost from the improvement to their efficiency. According to Maria Surma Manka, at Green Options, the new way of structuring solar cells could up their juice output significantly--"These three-dimensional panels produce about 60 times more current than regular solar cells. " Wow. 60 times more current? That could give solar power a much higher usefulness quotient, don't you think? All those panels mushrooming on the roofs of Californians might soon get a whole lot more effective at powering the houses below them. It might even make the mushrooming spread to other territories. I wonder if the nano-enhancements would make solar power have potential even in soggy places like Oregon? (Don't mushrooms like it damp?) Wouldn't that be an incredible feat? A solar-powered Oregon. Only carbon nanotubes could pull that off.

God did a good thing when He invented carbon nanotubes.

Hat tip: Green Options, via Bill Hobbs at Ecotality

Eye In The Sky

I've been playing with a site I stumbled upon via NASA's Earth Observatory website. Every week NASA sends out emails with links to various photos of Earth locations, and the stories about what's happening there. Today I followed a link to an Earth Observatory story about how satellite data is helping scientists investigate the extent of desertification in the Sahel region of Africa, an area bordered by the Sahara desert. There has been some suspicion that the desert is spreading. (To reassure you, long-term data indicates this isn't necessarily so, but I'll let you read the article if the topic interests you.) That article led me to another, which examines exactly what desertification is, which then led me to click on a hidden little link that took me to the really cool site which is the whole reason I'm writing this post. I clicked over to GeoEye, and was met with the most amazing set of satellite photos, and a nifty little scroll whereby I could call up each picture that caught my interest. (The scroll was actually a bit tricky. It wanted to move a little too quickly for me to always get where I was aiming to go, but I got the hang of it eventually.)

After I looked at every single photo on that scroll, I started nosing around the rest of the site, and discovered that GeoEye is a "commercial remote sensing company," and according to the website, "GeoEye is a leading producer of satellite, aerial and geospatial information." They have three satellites taking highly-detailed images, which they sell to customers who use them for "mapping, environmental monitoring, commercial fishing, urban planning, resource management, homeland defense, national security, and emergency preparedness." (They have a photo of Hurricane Katrina that made me say, "WOW." Out loud.)

All of these "planning the future of mankind" applications are worthy and beneficial I'm sure, but realistically, I personally have no use for the data as such. Nor, I suspect, do you. National security will just have to go on without our input, but the "highly-detailed imagery" is just so darn cool, that I had to tell you about it. Let the Smart People figure out how to use the pictures for the good of all mankind. I just think they're pretty. (They have a store if you want a poster, or calendar, or anything--and just so you know that there really can't be many secrets anymore, at least not above-ground, one of those posters they're selling is an image of Area 51. The government had better get to hiding those aliens.)

Saving Tokyo From Space Fungi!!

Advances in technology just keep making things smaller and smaller, don't they? We've all witnessed the "Tinier Is Better" revolution that has been sweeping the globe for decades now. Computers that could perform such impressive feats as calculating Pi to the 50th decimal place, storing and spewing pertinent facts about the solar system, or listing all the American presidents in order of birth used to take up entire rooms. Now your laptop can practically run the world. Video cameras used to require weight lifters with big suitcases to carry them around, and scaffolding to support them when in use. Now Tinkerbell can fit one in her pocket. Cellphones? Not only have they shrunk dramatically in size, now they will do everything from snapping photographs, to holding your date book, to doing your taxes. (Okay, the taxes part is a stretch, but not by much.) The further technology advances, the less space it takes. It's simply the way things work. This applies to everything but TV screen size, SUVs and jumbo jets. For some reason these three items are the exception to the smallification rule. (That is, unless you count iPods with video functions, but why get bogged down in exceptions to the exceptions?)

This Lilliputian trend is quite beneficial, actually. I love being able to take my entire music collection on the hiking trail with me, and I could never have blogged all those Disney World photos that kept you so enthralled in January if it weren't so easy to bring along a digital camera and computer on vacation. Little stuff is just easier to haul around, and that's especially useful when space is extremely limited, like on long journeys in cramped spaces. Where else could the journey be so long, or the spaces so cramped as in a ship flying off to distant planets? Don't think other galaxies distant. Think the Moon or Mars distant. Those are plenty far away at our current level of technology. Maybe one day our advancing tech will "shrink" the distances of space, but for now the other planets right here at Sol central are still a loooong way off, and we'll have to pack loads of stuff into little spaceships, so little stuff is good.

Little still has to be functional, though. There's a lot of important science to be done in space. For example, it'll be important during those long flights to have compact ways to accurately monitor the too-tiny-to-see stuff that will inevitably be hitching rides on our space vehicles, like what kinds of microorganisms are growing--in the astronauts as well as the ships. We've all seen those sci fi movies where some miniscule piece of space dust gets sucked through the ventilation system and later grows into something that lands the ship and eats Tokyo. As NASA plans for future journeys to the Moon and Mars, it's important that they have things covered on the detecting microorganisms front. Okay, really it's more about making sure their spacecrafts' electronic components and structural elements don't get corroded by little growing things, and the astronauts stay healthy, but space bacteria eating Tokyo is a time-honored tradition that is worthy of at least a friendly nod from the Meow.

Detecting fungi and bacteria is, of course, something that can already be done, even in space. Taking cultures and growing them in petri dishes has served humanity well over the years, but the process requires both space and time. So, naturally, in this age of shrink-to-fit technology, NASA has come up with a better way to do it. Trudy Bell, at NASA's science website, writes that a miniature biological laboratory went up to the International Space Station last December aboard the space shuttle Discovery, and Astronaut Sunita "Suni" Williams took the mini lab for a test drive on April 1st. The lab is called LOCAD-PTS, short for Lab-On-a-Chip Application Development–Portable Test System, which makes the lab itself much smaller than its name. This thing is dinky, but as we have seen with the iPod, good things come in small packages. The standard methods of growing cultures can take days, but the mini-lab gives accurate microorganism-detection readings in a matter of minutes, and the whole lab fits into the palm of your hand!! Nifty, huh? NASA is developing all sorts of different "cartridges" for the hand-held lab, which will be made to detect specific kinds of potential hazards, and the readings will be compared to the tried and true method of grow-it-in-a-dish:

Over the next few months, LOCAD-PTS and standard culture methods will be used to investigate different parts of ISS. "A second-generation of LOCAD-PTS cartridges for the specific detection of fungi are scheduled to launch to ISS on Space Shuttle STS-123," says Anthony T. Lyons, LOCAD-PTS project manager at Marshall, the NASA center that has overseen the project since its inception and supervised getting the equipment spaceflight-ready. "With each generation of cartridges, we are getting more and more specific in what we detect. Our ultimate aim is to provide the crew with a selection of cartridges for the detection of a wide variety of target compounds, biological and chemical both inside and outside the spacecraft—something that would be especially important for long-duration missions to the Moon or to Mars."

My only question here is, if they have all these cartridges designed to check for specific things, how will they test for the things they don't know about, like (drawing on my vast knowledge gleaned from old Star Trek episodes) silicone-based lifeforms, or crystalline structures that will grow to eat Tokyo when brought back into our oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere? Or tribbles. Will they have a tribble-detection cartridge? Ahh, you're right. They won't need a tribble-detection cartridge, since the astronauts could actually see said tribbles eating their quadrotriticale. What NASA's worried about is fungi or chemicals that will eat their wires, or their astronauts. Sounds like they're on the right path with this little pocket-lab. I would still feel more comfortable, though, if I knew they had a plan for saving Tokyo, and I'd really like it if their Tokyo-saving device could fit easily into my purse. The small one.

Falcon 1 Liftoff

Here's the video of the Falcon 1 rocket launch that I wrote about yesterday. It's about five minutes long. Watch it through the more boring bits where all you see is water condensation as the rocket passes through the clouds. The stages separating and the Earth falling into the distance and taking shape as a ball in space is way neato.

Hat tip: Futurismic

Private Spaceflight--Blasting Off

Hey, if you're interested in privately-funded spaceflight, here's a tidbit from Spaceflight Now you might want to peruse. It's a partial transcript of a post-launch press briefing by Elon Musk. Musk is the founder of SpaceX, a private company contracted by NASA to develop the Falcon 9 rocket for delivering cargo to the International Space Station. According to SpaceX's website, if all goes well with the rocket's development, "At the option of NASA, the Agreement can be extended to include demonstrating transport of crew to and from the International Space Station (ISS). If successful, NASA will have the ability to use the demonstrated capability to resupply the ISS after the 2010 retirement of the Space Shuttle." The goal for SpaceX is to create a line of launch vehicles that will reach anywhere from low Earth orbit to other planets. The company just tested its Falcon 1 rocket as part of developing the Falcon 9, but that is only the beginning of their plans for private spaceflight. Also from their website:

As part of this Agreement, SpaceX will execute three flights of its Falcon 9 rocket carrying the Dragon spaceship. These will be the first flights of the Dragon spaceship and the fourth, fifth and sixth flights of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle.

The missions are scheduled to occur in the late 2008 to 2009 time period and will culminate in demonstrating delivery of cargo to the ISS and safe return of cargo to Earth. The Dragon spaceship is designed from the beginning to have an identical structure for both cargo and crew transport, allowing for a rapid transition from unmanned to manned flight as soon as reliability is proven.

"By stimulating the development of commercial orbital spaceflight, the NASA COTS program will have the same positive effect on space travel as the Air Mail Act of 1925 had on the development of safe and affordable air transportation," said Elon Musk, SpaceX CEO. "Moreover, the requirement for significant private investment and the fact that NASA only pays for objective, demonstrated milestones ensures that the American taxpayer will receive exceptional value for money."

The freshly tested Falcon 1 rocket met with mixed success, making it to space, but failing to establish orbit. However, Musk was quite pleased with the progress nonetheless, and has high hopes for the future. Apparently the most dangerous part is making it off the planet, and the rest will be a fairly straightforward fix, as Musk discussed in his press briefing:

"I feel very confident 10 years from now that we can be putting both satellites and people into orbit, and maybe beyond (Earth) orbit. I feel very confident in the future of commercial spaceflight, private spaceflight and I think this bodes very, very well actually for achieving some of the goals that I mentioned. It is really an excellent indicator that a small company can achieve great things....We had what I would call a relatively minor issue with the roll-control very late in the flight. But all the really big risk items, the ones we were most concerned, have been addressed. If you look at the early history of rocketry, I think they had something like 12 Atlas failures before the 13th one was successful. To get this far on our second launch being an all-new rocket -- new main engine, new first stage, new second stage engine, new second stage, new fairing, new launch pad system, with so many new things -- to have gotten this far is great."

Sounds encouraging. I'm totally on board with the notion that privately funded and developed spaceships can and should be part of humanity's space future. I really like seeing NASA contract with private companies to meet its goals, especially since America's space shuttle is soon to be grounded. Private industry can take financial risks that government agencies shouldn't necessarily be taking, and a commercial spaceflight industry can reap great rewards in the process, both from government contracts and private tourism/commercial transportation. With companies like SpaceX putting private expertise to work, in hopes of making a profit, everyone involved, NASA included, can ultimately benefit, and as Musk pointed out, NASA, and thus the taxpayer, "only pays for objective, demonstrated milestones." Free market meets space. Two of my favorite things taking flight together. Go for launch.

Hat tip: Instapundit, for the press briefing link.

Haptics--Coming To A Cellphone Near You

Pretty soon we're not going to be able to trust any of our own senses. We are rapidly approaching the day when the line between illusion and reality won't be easily determined by casual examination. Science fiction is creeping further and further into the real world, and some of the time we don't even notice it. The phrase, "I'll believe it when I see it." has lost a good deal of it's meaning in recent decades. We see perfectly believable things all the time which are nothing but computer generated graphics, or clever use of Photoshop. We hear things all the time which are studio fabrications--like the beautiful diva's aria from the movie The Fifth Element. We taste and smell things, probably daily, that are chemical facsimiles of nature's offerings, and never give it a second thought. The only relatively trustworthy sense left in our arsenal is that of touch, and if the truth be told, that one's going on the reliability chopping-block too.

If you've read the Meow for any length of time, more specifically since last August, then you've probably seen my posts about haptics. In the first, I spent a little time discussing what the science of haptics is, and in the second, I shared some links sent to me by Dr. Gabriel Robles-De-La-Torre, founder of the International Society for Haptics, and a prominent researcher in the field. For those of you who don't have the background, I'll describe haptics the same way I did before:

Haptics uses computer technology to make you feel things that aren't really there, or feel things differently than they actually are. It's a virtual reality type of fooling the senses, but haptics involves the sense of touch.

It's not really an adequate definition, but it gets you started on the idea, and you can follow the links if you want to know more. There are explanations for how force can imply shape, and there are graphic demonstrations to help those of us who aren't neuroscientists and computer engineers like Dr. Robles-De-La-Torre. It's interesting stuff, and the Meow will still be here when you get back, so go have a look... Go on... Shoo!

Back now? Okay, then let's move on. The thing which got me "hooked on haptics" is reading the explanations of how Dr. R's work can be applied in the real world. I find it absolutely fascinating that your body could touch something, and feel something else. The good doctor has developed mechanisms where a person running their finger over something smooth will feel something sharp, or pointy, which is impressive enough in itself, but what is even more amazing is the growing list of ways the science can be applied to things which you and I use, and will probably grow to take for granted. I wrote before that there are hopes that haptics will advance to the point where surgeons could practice operations using a haptic interface, perfecting their technique before ever touching a real live patient, but feeling everything they would if a living breathing bleeding person lay on the table before them. Space technicians, too, might be able to get the "feel" of dangerous maneuvers, like docking a spaceship to an orbiting station, aiding the chances that when they perform the real thing in space, they won't damage either people or expensive space toys. There are versions of these technologies in use today, although there's a long way to go. More and more advanced forms of haptics technology could be saving lives in the very near future.

These applications are wonderful, of course, even noble, but you might be thinking, "Okay, but that stuff is all pretty distant from me. Although I might have surgery one day, I'm not going to be performing one any time soon, and space shuttle docking is even further out of my reach, so there's not much chance I'm going to even experience haptic technology, let alone take it for granted." Clearly, I have something further to offer for your haptics edification, or I wouldn't bother writing this post, so read on.

I got an email yesterday from our friend Dr. Robles-De-La-Torre, and he sent me to an article from The Economist (via TCMnet) that just came out this month, about some more applications of the kind of work that he's doing. The Economist explains how the science is moving beyond using only force to fool you into believing you're touching something you're not (as amazing as that is), and adding a new dimension--skin stretch:

Most of today's haptic devices rely on motors that either prod or vibrate the skin, but a new technology is emerging that is an even more flexible and effective means of stimulating the sense of touch: skin stretch. By laterally stretching the surface of the skin (without pushing or poking into it) it is possible to mimic the feeling of complex shapes and sensations. This is because the sense of touch seems to depend far more on the way in which the skin is deformed and stretched than it does on the degree of pressure applied. So it should be possible to recreate sensations purely by stretching skin, says Vincent Hayward, a researcher who first developed such a device at the Centre for Intelligent Machines at McGill University in Montreal, Canada.

"It's analogous to watching a TV screen," he says. The human eye can be tricked into seeing a range of colours on a video display, even though it really only consists of tiny red, green and blue dots. In much the same way the sense of touch can be fooled into feeling shapes and textures that are not there, says Dr Hayward.

Okay, cool. Skin stretch is another tool in the haptic bag of tricks, and the body gets fooled like it does with television, but this still doesn't answer how any of this becomes something you and I are likely to encounter. How does the science of haptics affect me!! (It is all about me, you know--or you, as the case may be.) Patience. The Economist points out some of the ways the rest of us may be experiencing haptics--it also includes a much better definition than mine of exactly what haptics is:

Haptics is the science of simulating pressure, texture, vibration and other sensations related to touch. The term is derived from a Greek word meaning "able to lay hold of". Devices that exploit haptics have been around for decades: many modern aeroplanes, for example, have haptic control columns that shake or vibrate to warn the pilot of an approaching stall. The technology has also found its way into video-game consoles, where it adds an extra layer of realism. Players can feel when they are veering off course in a driving game, or when they have been hit in a shooting game. Force-feedback technology, another offshoot of haptics, is used in robotic telesurgery and in surgical simulators to enable surgeons to feel resistance as they move their surgical instruments around, just as they would in conventional surgery. Even the "vibrate" mode on a mobile phone, which discreetly alerts the user to an incoming call or text message, is an example of haptics.

Okay, this is getting a little more down-to-Earth. We've all played video games, and used a cellphone, right? This haptics thing might apply to us after all! It might even be worth reading the rest of this post to see what's around the corner.

It's the cellphone that is taking haptics to a new level, in terms of real-world application. Some of the new mobile phones are coming sans keyboard, with nothing but a touchscreen interface, but one phone in particular, from Samsung, is taking it a step further, and adding a new haptic twist:

The SCH-W559 handset, which is so far available only in China, fools the user's sense of touch and mimics the feeling of pressing a mechanical button, even though the surface is actually completely flat. It is the latest example of a new breed of "haptic" technologies that do for the sense of touch what lifelike colour displays and hi-fi sound do for eyes and ears.

Wow. They're making you feel like you've pressed a button--that satisfying little click you feel--when all you've done is touch a screen. Unbelievable, huh? That whole skin stretch thing must be making its mark. I get why you would want the feel of real buttons, even if it's only a screen you're touching. You'd have to pay much closer visual attention if you couldn't tell by feel when a button had indeed been pushed. I'm mentally working on what the advantage is to a simulated button over a mechanical one, and the best I'm coming up with so far is that if you spill something it can't seep between the buttons and gum up the works. Dust would have a hard time finding its way into tech devices that are dust-sensitive, too, if the surface of the keyboard was actually a solid screen. Maybe mechanical buttons would wear out more quickly than simulated ones. I'm sure there are many other advantages, and Smart People somewhere have thought of most of them. They will become clearer to the rest of us as the technology gets more mature. What I suspect is part of the motivator now, though, for playing with haptics is that they can. It's just plain cool and fun to be able to do this stuff, whatever it's ultimate uses.

Of course, this whole world of haptics technology is one of those things that one day we'll all take for granted, and future generations might even understand. In a few years our kids will probably be able to build their own haptics interfaces for school projects, and it will have worked its way into children's toys as well as the grownups' gadgets. Mattel will sell some version or other of Barbie's Haptic Dream House , where you can pet little haptic Barbie pets with Barbie's hand, and feel it with yours, or feel the new Barbie Dream Carpet through Haptic Barbie's feet. Wouldn't that blur the line between reality and illusion--if you could feel what Barbie "feels"? Hey, you're scoffing now, but can you imagine what it would be like to go to sleep a hundred years ago and wake up today? Microwaves and cellphones alone would send you loopy. Haptic Barbie is not that much of a stretch. I wonder if her cellphone will come complete with haptic buttons?

Having A Look At Io And Pluto

I know I've written about some serious Earth-based stuff lately, and it might be a bit jarring to jump back out into space, but this is just so cool and interesting. I had to let you see it too. Dr. Tony Phillips, has the latest from NASA's ventures in space exploration, complete with pictures. For those of you who don't know, NASA has a spacecraft headed out to Pluto. The craft is named New Horizons, and it's carrying an eight-inch telescope called LORRI, short for Long Range Reconnaissance Imager. They're looking to snap some high resolution pics of the recently-demoted dwarf planet and its moons, sometime around 2015. To get her there on schedule, NASA decided that New Horizons needed a speed boost on the way out to the fringes of our solar system, so they swung her by Jupiter, to slingshot around the giant planet and pick up 9,000 mph of extra giddy-up. This will cut five years off the trip--well worth the detour, wouldn't you say?

Now, since New Horizons was doing a flyby of the big guy anyway, of course NASA seized the opportunity to take a few photos of Jupiter and the multiple moons hanging out in the vicinity. In fact, LORRI didn't waste any time, snapping a whole gallery of images of Io, Europa, Callisto and Ganymede. They're all interesting in their own ways, but it's Io that captured the attention of NASA's old hands. LORRI caught Io's Tvashtar volcano in fine form; the erupting plume image is the best "longtime Jupiter experts -- have ever seen." No kidding--the plume rises 180 miles above the surface of the moon! (I almost said "into the air," but that doesn't quite work on Io, now does it?) If you follow the link to the article, the photo is there for your viewing pleasure, along with a link to other pics that LORRI shot in the neighborhood.

One of the rather amazing things about this eruption on Io is what the photo shows happens when the plume gets that high in that environment. Dr. Phillips quotes Andy Cheng, a scientist from Johns Hopkins' Applied Physics Lab:

"The patchy and filamentous structure seen in the Tvashtar plume suggests to me that condensation from gas to solid particulates is occurring," he says. In other words, the gas could be crystallizing in the cold space above Io to form a kind of sulfurous snow.

Volcanoes spewing snow? It is an alien world.

Alien, indeed. In case I haven't mentioned it before (of course I have)--I want to go there!! Things are happening out there, and I'm missing them--or, at least I would be, if it weren't for New Horizons. Fortunately, LORRI was there at the right place at the right time; although, the chances were pretty good that LORRI would catch something interesting no matter when she showed up. Apparently, this kind of action isn't rare on this particular Jupitorial satellite. Io, is a rather volcanically active little guy. According to Dr. Phillips:

Gravitational forces exerted on Io by Jupiter and the other large moons raise tidal bulges in Io's solid crust 30 meters high. This flexing action, like the flexing of a paperclip, makes Io's interior molten hot and, as a result, the moon has hundreds of active volcanoes.

There's a nifty little animated graphic with Dr. Phillips' article which demonstrates all that tidal bulging. It looks a lot like a tennis ball flexing, when a video camera catches it in slow motion after it's been hit with a good strong forehand.

As New Horizons heads out to the farther reaches of our little corner of the galaxy, there are ever more discoveries to be made. Pluto awaits, and NASA plans to closely examine our little dwarf friend, and his immediate family:

"Future LORRI images of Pluto and Charon will have even more detail and higher resolution, because New Horizons will bring us at least a thousand times closer than we came to Io," notes Cheng. Of course, no one has any idea what LORRI will see, because Pluto has never been visited by a space probe. "That's why we're going."

One more interesting thing about Pluto and Charon: Wikipedia says that Pluto may get reclassified again, and Charon may come in for a bigger piece of the spotlight:

Pluto and its largest satellite, Charon, could be considered a binary system because they are closer in size than any of the other known celestial pair combinations in the solar system, and because the barycenter of their orbits does not lie within either body. However, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) has yet to formalize a definition for binary dwarf planets, so Charon is currently regarded as a moon of Pluto.

It might be hard for Pluto to face yet another change in status, but then again, maybe not. Pluto and Charon are close, you know, and Pluto may be happy to see his buddy get a little more attention. Besides, being a binary system would make Pluto kind of unique, in our neck of the woods anyway, and it might compensate for getting kicked out of the big boys' club. I'm not saying that Pluto has an ego. He may be perfectly humble, but if I was recently told I couldn't hang with the cool kids anymore, it would probably make me feel better if someone made a fuss over me for awhile, especially if I got to start a new club with my best friend.

Promises, Promises

Why do weather reporters always lie? I'm convinced that they know the reports they are making are wrong, and they do it anyway, just to mess with our heads. They keep their jobs, because they're all in on it together, and there's no competition from other, more honest, weather prognosticators, no fear someone else is going to come out with a more accurate prediction. They are also secretly sharing the real weather forecast with their bosses and station owners, and they are all chuckling about it behind everyone else's backs. It's mean. I and countless children in the Portland area were promised snow, and all we're getting is COLD. Where does that get fun? If I sound like I'm whining, it's because I am. It's so anticlimactic. I was all ready to snuggle into the comfy chair, with a big mug of tea, and stare contentedly at the meandering flakes drifting down to nestle into their chilly white beds. Later, I would have bundled up and gone walking with my Kedley in a winter wonderland. It was a good plan!! Hmmph. Good thing I went skiing a few days ago, and plan to go again soon, or this snow thing would really tick me off. As it is, I'm just in whine mode, and will get over it as soon as something interesting catches my attention. I'm sort of like a puppy, or a Kat.

Okay, attention caught. (Wasn't that easy?) Those of you who check in here regularly know that I'm a big fan of the whole Space Elevator idea. Electric elevators climbing a super strong ribbon up and out of the gravity well that keeps matter sucked to our fair planet make a fine alternative to the rockets that require so much fuel to boost them out to space that there's barely any room left for cargo. Not that watching rockets take off isn't fun and all, but someday I'd actually like to take a trip into the outer limits myself, and I just can't see it happening as long as the voyage involves massive amounts of money, and massive amounts of G-forces. I get carsick if the ride involves too much acceleration. I'm pretty sure I would get rocketsick too. Now, I know that a space elevator would have to book it along at a brisk trot as well, but the mph factor and direction would be much more likely to remain fairly constant once it got up to speed, thus eliminating my main motion issues. That's my hope anyway, and I'm sticking to it, as long as no Really Smart People tell me any differently. (I'll think about the whole sickness from free-fall thing later.)

This brings up a pertinent question, though. Where do you go to get your space elevator queries answered? Answer: Really Smart People, of course!! Follow the link I posted above, which will send you to the Elevator 2010 site. Here's what they have to say about themselves:

The dream of a Space Elevator is a monumental one. A vision that will not only further space exploration and knowledge, but has the potential to shape the existential future of the human race for centuries to come.

For the first time since it was initially conceived, this dream is now within our reach.

Elevator 2010 has joined the on-going construction effort, adding energy, resources and new initiatives to the ever-growing number of organizations, companies, websites and enthusiasts focused on the technical, political and economic development of the Space Elevator.

Our goal is to generate enough interest in the project, so that within five years the Space Elevator basic building blocks can be demonstrated as feasible, and full-scale design and construction can begin.

And hence our name. Elevator:2010. we promise to get an answer for you by then.

Elevator 2010 is a project of the Spaceward Foundation, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization.

Here's the link to their Space Elevator Primer, which should give you the gist of the concept. Then, if you still want more Space Elevator fun, you can go on to the FAQ page. It'll provide you with a list of Frequently Asked Questions, and more importantly, answer them. Isn't that exciting? Even better, if you need a little help getting your head around the whole notion of an elevator into space, there's a movie. Well, okay, it's an animation. Since we don't actually have an elevator yet, it would be hard to produce actual footage of the thing in action, but the animation is pretty slick and movie-esque--not up to the standard of today's CGI, but what do you want with a free demo of a cool idea? Popcorn and Milk Duds? Just follow the link to the FAQs and off to the right, under the Elevator 2010 logo is a little "intro movie" link. Go ahead and click on it. It'll be fun. At least I think so. Honest. I wouldn't lie to you about it. After all, I'm not a weather reporter, or any deceptive mean person like that. Hmmph. Promise me snow and not deliver....

Update: We finally got a little token dusting, but only enough to make things inconvenient, and not enough to make things fun. What's more, it came at night, when I couldn't watch it fall. I am not mollified in the least toward the weather prognostication industry. They made a big deal of it all, and I didn't even have a reason to put on boots. I still say they're mean. Waah!!

How To Protect Yourself From Cosmic Rays If You Ever Happen To Make It Into Space

This one is fun. Remember back in September when the poor commander got lost on Mars and couldn't understand Base's instructions? No? Okay, go here first and refresh your memory. I'll wait... Finished? Then we're ready to move on. Since you've now done your homework, you know that the reason the Mars mission was in jeopardy was that the crew's brains were being scrambled by radiation. Radiation is a big problem that scientists are going to have to figure out before humans start heading out past the protection of the Earth's magnetic field, beyond the orbit where the International Space Station flies above the Earth in relative safety. The Moon and Mars, as we all know, are on the short list for mission possibilities, and spending such long periods of time in space could do more than scramble a few brain cells; if current theories are correct, astronauts could be risking premature aging by heading out into the cosmic ray zone. (That last link leads to an interesting article about space radiation, telomeres, Einstein and pills to repair DNA damage--I followed a link from there to one about what the heck telomeres are, and how they affect aging, with possible implications for human life extension. Pretty interesting if you want to follow some rabbit trails.)

All of that aside, however, what I really want to tell you about is the idea some scientists have for blocking all that radiation, so that no astronautical DNA is damaged in the first place. Patrick L. Barry wrote an article for NASA about how they are looking to make space ships out of a revolutionary new material--you're not going to guess this one in a million years. (Well, okay, I wouldn't have guessed it in a million years.) The material? Plastic. Polyethylene, to be precise. This is what they use to make the plastic trash bags of which we all have an abundance under our kitchen sink.

Most household trash bags are made of a polymer called polyethylene. Variants of that molecule turn out to be excellent at shielding the most dangerous forms of space radiation. Scientists have long known this. The trouble has been trying to build a spaceship out of the flimsy stuff.

But now NASA scientists have invented a groundbreaking, polyethylene-based material called RXF1 that's even stronger and lighter than aluminum. "This new material is a first in the sense that it combines superior structural properties with superior shielding properties," says Nasser Barghouty, Project Scientist for NASA's Space Radiation Shielding Project at the Marshall Space Flight Center.

To Mars in a plastic spaceship? As daft as it may sound, it could be the safest way to go.

According to Barry, one of plastic's big selling points is that when radiation smashes into it, it doesn't produce nearly as much "secondary radiation" as materials like aluminum or lead. That secondary radiation can be just as much of a problem for astronauts as the cosmic rays themselves:

The advantage of plastic-like materials is that they produce far less "secondary radiation" than heavier materials like aluminum or lead. Secondary radiation comes from the shielding material itself. When particles of space radiation smash into atoms within the shield, they trigger tiny nuclear reactions. Those reactions produce a shower of nuclear byproducts -- neutrons and other particles -- that enter the spacecraft. It's a bit like trying to protect yourself from a flying bowling ball by erecting a wall of pins. You avoid the ball but get pelted by pins. "Secondaries" can be worse for astronauts' health than the original space radiation!

Barry says the lighter elements of hydrogen and carbon, the building blocks for those plastic bags, won't completely stop the space radiation, but can fragment that radiation so that it is much less harmful. He uses the example of a chain link fence blocking a snowball. Some snow still gets through, but it doesn't hurt as much. This author has a knack for making scientific-speak understandable, doesn't he? I'll let him tell you more:

Despite their shielding power, ordinary trash bags obviously won't do for building a spaceship. So Barghouty and his colleagues have been trying to beef-up polyethylene for aerospace work.

That's how Shielding Project researcher Raj Kaul, working together with Barghouty, came to invent RXF1. RXF1 is remarkably strong and light: it has 3 times the tensile strength of aluminum, yet is 2.6 times lighter -- impressive even by aerospace standards.

"Since it is a ballistic shield, it also deflects micrometeorites," says Kaul, who had previously worked with similar materials in developing helicopter armor. "Since it's a fabric, it can be draped around molds and shaped into specific spacecraft components." And because it's derived from polyethylene, it's an excellent radiation shield as well.

They're working on ways to address some of the drawbacks that come with polyethylene--like the irritating tendency it has to burn and melt and whatnot. Now, this article is over a year old, and my search on the NASA site didn't lead me to any more updated information, so I can't tell you right now how this research is progressing. Back in August of 2005, no one was sure yet whether plastic really could serve as a shield to make space travel safer, but "hypothetically" polyethylene might be "not just for trash bags anymore."

It's so interesting how many useful discoveries for right here on Earth come out of space research. Man may never fly to the Moon in a plastic rocket. We may never see plastic habitats on Mars, but--and this is important--we can be pretty sure that our garbage will never get cancer from radiation!! That's an encouraging breakthrough, right? Even more valuable, now that we've all read the reports from NASA and know how useful plastic bags can be, we can make the important fashion decision about whether we want to wear plastic bags over our clothes when we go outside, to protect ourselves from cosmic rays. Hey, come on, it's not such a bad idea. If enough of us do it, it could even become trendy. Maybe if we get some Hollywood type to do it first we can all pretend it's actually cool. Then we would just look like lemmings, and not freaks. Hmmm. Let me think about this. Somebody sci fi maybe, but with crossover appeal.... I've got it! Will Smith!! Men In Black, I Robot, Independence Day... yeah, he'd do nicely. Somebody out there want to volunteer to suggest it to him?

Note: Yes, I know I'm being goofy today. I can't seem to help myself. I start out with a perfectly reasonable piece about the science of using plastic as a radiation shield and end up looking to make Will Smith the poster boy for the tinfoil hat brigade (plastic bag, tinfoil hat--same difference.) I'll try to control myself now, but I make no promises. I have a very good excuse. The day started out with snow, and that always gets me a little giddy. Wait a minute... Snow comes from the sky. Cosmic rays come from the sky, too. Maybe I'm so goofy because the cosmic rays are making it past the Earth's magnetic field and sneaking down into my neighborhood disguised as snow!!! This could be a real problem. I better go put on some plastic bags just in case.

Going Up

Here's a bit of tongue-in-cheek fluff at Colony Worlds for Space Elevator fans--a list of reasons not to build one. I couldn't resist leaving a comment on this post. Darnell Clayton, the blogger-in-charge, asked for additional excuses for not constructing the elevator, so I came up with one. Mine's the second comment. That made the total two, so I'm sure Mr. Clayton would appreciate your suggestions as well. Let me know if you come up a good one!!

Hat tip: Futurismic

Stretching The Imagination

"The king is dead. Long live the king." Doesn't that time-honored phrase seem a bit oxymoronic? At least it did to me as a child when I would see old movies about the turbulent times surrounding monarchical transitions of power (even before I knew what the words oxymoronic and monarchical meant.) In those films, the assemblage of nobles crowded into the royal bedchamber to watch the royal demise would all speak the solemn words in unison. The loyal and stunningly lovely ward of the king would weep beautifully, while the evil viceroy would pledge false allegiance to the dashing but conflicted Prince. It took me a while to grasp that the mourning subjects in those period dramas were wishing long life to the new king, however perfidiously, not suggesting the old king could make a comeback. (There's only one King I know who died and yet is still living--and no, I don't mean Elvis.) As I learned from those movies, even the most beloved monarch must pass into history, and there must always be a backup ruler waiting in the wings to assume the position of power. Order must be kept. The nation must survive intact. Sometimes, of course, the conflict in those movies rested in the fact there were a few too many backup monarchs waiting to don the royal robes.

That scenario is mostly from the past, though. What about the future? As it turns out, this kind of passing of the torch ritual could, by some people's reckoning, be needed on a much grander scale in years to come. Would it surprise you to know that there are a whole host of people preparing for the eventual demise of Earth, with backup home-worlds-in-waiting and lots of planning into what other celestial bodies might serve as a lifeboat in the event of a planet-destroying asteroid, a nuclear holocaust, or even nanoweapons? (Stargate SG-1 fans will be interested to know there are actually people planning for the day Replicators start eating everything in sight, and designing nanoshields to fend them off. The above link has an abundance of information.) Order must be kept. The human race must survive intact. The Lifeboat Foundation is hard at work envisioning both future problems and their solutions, so that humanity can live outside of the shadow of impending disaster. Here's their mission statement:

The Lifeboat Foundation is a nonprofit nongovernmental organization dedicated to helping humanity survive existential risks and possible misuse of increasingly powerful technologies, including genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and robotics/AI, as we move towards a technological singularity.

Lifeboat Foundation is pursuing a variety of options, including helping to accelerate the development of technologies to defend humanity, including new methods to combat viruses (such as RNA interference and new vaccine methods), effective nanotechnological defensive strategies, and even self-sustaining space colonies in case the other defensive strategies fail.

We believe that, in some situations, it might be feasible to relinquish technological capacity in the public interest (for example, we are against the U.S. government posting the recipe for the 1918 flu virus on the internet). We have some of the best minds on the planet working on programs to enable our survival.

Wild, huh? Clearly the Lifeboat Foundation is looking for technological solutions right here on Earth and isn't solely focused on the idea of having an alternative planet to serve as a fallback position, but having an off-world escape hatch is a major part of many futurists' and scientists' plans for the survival of humanity. The Moon's close proximity makes it the lifeboat of choice for William E. Burrows, author of "The Survival Imperative: Using Space to Protect Earth," and he's not alone in his thinking. Amara D. Angelica has a look at the idea of "The Moon as backup drive for civilization" for KurzweilAI.net. She examines some of the ideas for how to use the Moon, including colonization, and some of these concepts get really "out there," as is this one from Dr. Martine Rothblatt:

The moon as digital archive could also play an important future role in the CyBeRev program being developed by satellite communications pioneer Dr. Martine Rothblatt. She visualizes storing one's life history—"digital reflections of their mannerisms, personality, recollections, feelings, beliefs, attitudes and values—with as great a fidelity as is possible."

Future developments in mind-uploading technology and regenerative medicine would then "enable the recovered cyberconscious CyBeRev person to transfer their mind into a synthetic body (including brain), such as one made out of nanotechnological materials."

Eventually these would be instantiated into "a flesh body (including brain) grown from totipotent stem cells in which genetic engineering techniques have suppressed the development of a separate mind."

Wow, if this flies there won't ever be a need for one of those standing-around-the-bed-of-the-dying-king moments again. They can just download his identity and grow him a new body. You know, I am constantly amazed at the way science fiction becomes science fact these days, but this is straining even my willing suspension of disbelief. I can grasp the notion of how colonies in space could help humanity survive, at least temporarily, in case of some planet-wide calamity. I can get my head around the notion that we are creating some of the risks from which we must plan to defend ourselves, but using the Moon as a library for people—"digital reflections of their mannerisms, personality, recollections, feelings, beliefs, attitudes and values" for later transfer to lab grown bodies? Tilt. Try again. It's fun for a mental diversion on some sci fi show, or in the pages of Asimov or Heinlein, but the notion that scientists are actually spending their time trying to make it happen is beyond my ability to comprehend. Maybe it's because I believe in that King that died and yet is alive, and thus have my own Lifeboat (which also is beyond belief for some people), but I can't imagine going to such lengths trying to tie oneself to this existence, devoting one's life to trying to escape physical death.

Anyway, there's an awful lot of reading here, if you choose to follow through with any of it. Every once in a while I feel the need to check in and see what the really imaginative people of the world are coming up with. It seems right now a group of them are coming up with doomsday scenarios and solutions. I suspect many of these schemes won't be remotely useful. I also suspect a few of the technologies developed from them will be fantastically useful. Any of us reading this stuff now probably won't live to see the day when a fraction of these visions come to pass, and many of us definitely don't want to see that day. I, for one, hope the Moon never becomes necessary as a lifeboat (although I would love to vacation there), and am pretty certain it won't become an "identity library," but it is an interesting foray into the realms of imagination to envision the day when humanity may say, "The Earth is dead. Long live the Earth."

A Rescue And A Contest

Hey, astronomy buffs!! (I know there must be one, or even two, of you out there.) I've got a couple of space-related items for you this morning. Both involve taking pictures of space, but with very different equipment. The first item will comfort the hearts of everybody who has been staying awake nights worried that the Hubble telescope is on its last legs, and NASA has been undecided about its fate, debating the feasibility of getting a shuttle crew out to make repairs. You can sleep well tonight, though, because a shuttle flight to Hubble has been added to the list of things NASA plans to do before the shuttles themselves are retired in 2010. Kelly Young, of NewScientistSpace, writes that the mission could occur as early as 2008.

One of the concerns that has delayed plans to send the crew to one of the most valuable sources of data that NASA has ever had is the unique danger of the journey. Young says, "If anything went wrong at or on the way to Hubble, the astronauts could not take refuge aboard the International Space Station." Obviously, this would make rescue both more difficult, and more urgent, since the supplies available on board the shuttle wouldn't last nearly as long as those on the space station, where an expanded crew would have provisions enough to last 70 or 80 days, compared to about 25 on shuttle resources alone. Nevertheless, the decision has been made, and Hubble will get an upgrade, enabling it to keep sending fantastic images to Earth for years longer:

The servicing mission, if successful, could keep Hubble operational until at least 2013. Without a shuttle flight, Hubble's instruments would have eventually started to shut down. The gyroscopes that point Hubble and keep it steady could last until 2008 and the batteries until 2010.

The servicing mission will add six new batteries, six gyroscopes, a flight guidance sensor, the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph and the Wide Field Camera 3. They will be by far the best instruments ever sent to Hubble.

Astronauts might also try to fix the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph by replacing an electronics board. Astronauts will attach handles on the back end of Hubble to make it easier to grab later, in preparation for its de-orbit, probably after 2020.

Now that we're all breathing easier about our beloved telescope in the great beyond, let's talk about something closer to home, shall we? If you've got a telescope of your own and an H-alpha filter, you've got the chance to view Mercury as it crosses the face of the Sun on November 8th. All you have to do is fly to Brazil, stay up until 2:37 a.m., align your telescope perfectly to the nanometer, and you'll have the chance to get a really good ten-second view. Get ready!! Don't blink, or you'll miss it!! Actually, that was a bare-faced lie, as I'm sure you could tell by my telling you to point your telescopes at the Sun at 2:37 a.m. Mercury's transit will take about five hours, and, according to Spaceweather.com, will be clearly visible from "the Americas, Hawaii and around the Pacific Rim."

The folks at Spaceweather are so excited about it they're having a Transit of Mercury Art and Photo Contest. All you need is the aforementioned telescope and filter, as well as a digital camera. Alternatively, you can draw it, sketch it, paint it--whatever suits your fancy. There are prizes and everything. Even if you aren't interested in entering the contest, head over and have a look at the winners from three years ago--the last time Mercury did the Sun dance. They're pretty darn cool.

Well, that about wraps up our space report for now. Very soon I'll have new space photos for you, though, so we have that to look forward to with eager anticipation. Hey, if any of you enter that photo and art contest, let us know, okay?

The X Prize

NASA didn't hand out any of the $2 million it was offering for winners in the Wirefly X Prize Cup over the weekend in New Mexico, but that didn't stop a lot of contestants and spectators from enjoying the games. The games are designed to motivate innovation in the private sector for space-related engineering, and are doing a bang-up job if the competition that just transpired is any indication. Yes, bang-up is a deliberate word choice. Some of the challengers soared, and some crashed and burned, but it's clear from what the teams accomplished that the prizes are meeting their aim of sparking advances in privately developed space-tech. No one managed to fully meet the engineering challenges, in any of the three categories, but according to Megan Miller, writing for Popsci.com, the games didn't lack promising moments. The Lunar Lander and Space Elevator competitions proved dramatic at times, and one elevator team came within two seconds of nabbing the $150,000 prize. Miller says that it's looking good for next year:

On the bright side, the weekend’s competitions proved that advances in aerospace engineering are bringing us closer and closer to the lunar-lander and space-elevator goals. A clear winner is expected to emerge in each category next year, and the prize money that went unclaimed this weekend will be added to the pot. That none of the teams came out victorious is a testament to how difficult to achieve these engineering feats really are. It is rocket science, after all.

It's pretty cool that this year's unclaimed prize money goes into next year's pot. That ought to add a little incentive for all the teams that didn't make the grade this year to keep trying. Not that they aren't already motivated, but sweetening the pot can't hurt.

Dr. Bradley Edwards, a space elevator expert, who I've linked to before (here's a must-read for elevator enthusiasts), says that things are coming along nicely, and the science and engineering are progressing apace, with the incentive NASA's prize offers to innovate spurring some of those advances. Edwards writes at spaceelevator.com that last weekend's event was evidence of that progress:

The challenges and events are doing what they were intended – pushing the engineering and available materials for the space elevator needs. The challenges have not achieved their goals yet, however, if this event is any indication during the next three to five years I have little doubt these events will produce a very high caliber climber and extreme strength materials.

Sounds to me like they're reaching new heights (sorry, I know that pun was too obvious), and this competition is one to watch in the future. I think it would have been a total kick to be there for the whole weekend, what with lunar landers flying overhead (yes, one of them did fly; it just crashed on the second attempt), robots climbing fifty meter ribbons, self-powered (solar, microwave, you name it), and the tether competition that you can read about in Dr. Edwards' post. Just the chance to talk to some of the engineers and ask them questions would have been a hoot, as Edwards says that crowds of children did throughout the games. I'm not a kid, but that doesn't mean I don't have questions. I have lots of questions. Most of them probably aren't up to the technical standards of the average ten-year-old, but why should I be penalized just because I was raised on Star Trek, and not the new Battlestar Galactica? Middle aged people need answers too!! Maybe it's worth a trip down to New Mexico next year to join in the fun.

Hat tip: Futurismic--for the spaceelevator.com link.

The Force Is Strong, And It's Messing Up Our Calculations

Some people are way too smart. It's almost scary the things that these especially astute people can think through with their mighty Super Brains. How many of us really understand what Einstein's Theory of Relativity is, and why we should even care, let alone grasp the math required to prove it? Up front I'll say I certainly don't, and if you do, you had probably better go read somewhere else, because this post is waaaaay beneath your abilities. I like to skim the surface of science for fun. I am enough of a geek to get a kick out of scientific theory and technological development, and I even did the extra credit geometry problems for fun in school. (My teacher didn't give the extra credit, so I guess that tilts me a little farther into the geek category.) However, I went on to be a Lit major, not a Smart Person, so I just get floored with the things that some people are able to figure out.

I have been at the European Space Agency website this morning, and not only do these people understand Einstein's theory, they are heading out into space to test it and "lay the foundation" for further developing its concepts, also potentially enlarging their knowledge of gravitation and navigation in the process. By navigation I am, of course, referring to space navigation. I don't think the European Space Agency is worried about directing ocean liners and weather balloons. They're interested in directing space ships, and calculating the huge distances between heavenly bodies, and figuring out how much gravitational pull those planets, and stars, and black holes, etc., are going to have that could pull probes and ships off their intended course. The weather balloons will have to fend for themselves.

Since we're talking space and astronomical bodies, there is a basic question about how you account for the movement of these bodies when calculating distances and locations--of anything. If two items are both moving, there has to be a way to measure that motion. Apparently, this involves bringing another object into the mix:

A cornerstone of relativity is the concept of a frame of reference. This is a set of bodies relative to which any motion can be measured. Without a reference frame, no motion through space can be detected. Scientists call a frame of reference 'inertial' if unperturbed objects appear in that frame, either at rest or moving at a constant velocity. For a reference frame to be perfectly inertial, the bodies that are used to mark it must be completely free of any force.

If I'm reading this right, scientists can measure things accurately in space only if they have objects to which they can compare other item's motion--objects that are either completely still, or are moving at a completely constant rate, but without being affected by the pull or push of anything else. They then can measure the motion and distance of other bodies relative to these celestial touchstones. The problem the ESA is facing is that gravity from all those big celestial bodies out in the great beyond is always mucking up the works, and its very difficult for any frame of reference to be "free from any force," so the measurements get all out of whack.

So, what is the ESA doing to overcome these difficulties? They are working to create their own frames of reference, and compensate mathematically for the "warping" of the measurements of distance that happens when gravity is not properly taken into account:

To make this measurement, LISA Pathfinder uses two 'proof-masses'. Each is a small cube of a gold and platinum alloy, whose relative motion is measured by a laser beam. Once in space, the proof-masses will float freely within the spacecraft. When subtle forces act on the proof-masses, the laser beam will detect the way they change position to within a few thousandths of a billionth of a meter, and will be able to detect forces as small as the weight of a typical bacterium.

In layman's terms, or as close as I can come even to that low standard, they made these gold and platinum alloy cubes (only 5 centimeters wide) because they are as close to being impervious to magnetic fields as they could possibly get them, since that is another force which can act on objects out in space. They have made them this way so that the only force they will respond to is gravity, and they hope to send them out into space, free-floating in this vessel called LISA Pathfinder. Then the fancy extra-accurate laser measuring gismo will track their every motion. In this way, they hope to detect and calculate the gravitational forces that throw off the accuracy of space measurements, and then they'll do lots and lots of complicated math to work out how much distance is really between all those celestial bodies that are currently way beyond our reach, but we might get to once the Smart People figure out warp drives.

The date they're shooting for to send LISA Pathfinder into space is sometime in 2009. This mission is the forerunner to LISA, which is a bit more large-scale, in which, "three spacecraft...will work together to detect Einstein's predicted ripples, known as gravitational waves, in the fabric of spacetime." Okay, I'm barely getting my head around the concept that these people can do the math involved in compensating for gravity when calculating distances in space, now they want to start looking for ripples in the fabric of spacetime. I think I'll ignore this part. I can only handle one over-my-head topic at a time, thank you very much. All the same, the Super Brains are really amazing, don't you think? I wonder what they'll work on once they have all this space measuring and navigation stuff figured out? Probably those warp drives we're going to need once they have the navigation part down. Whatever it is, I'm sure most of us won't understand it. I think I'll go read some literature now.

Space Shopping: Getting The Goods To Market

So, when we finally get hundreds of people living in "The Space Station of Tomorrow," how are we going to send them supplies? People have needs, you know, and as far as I know, Wal-Mart hasn't yet opened any new stores in orbit. (This is probably due to objections, which will one day be filed with the space station governing council, by concerned station planners, who want to protect mom and pop space ventures, ensure an adequate rate of pay, and prevent traffic congestion. It's probably already on the court docket for the year 2027.) Since a handy department store is currently out of the question, space visionaries had better start looking for another solution. Now, I grant you, there's going to have to be a whole lot of self-sufficiency going on. All those intrepid adventurers are going to have to forgo squeamishness about enhanced recycling of everything, from vehicle parts to human waste. It goes with the territory, but realistically, even in a Utopia of recycling efficiency, things wear out. Computers, clothing, gaskets and gadgets all have a limited lifespan. How is the provident home-world going to get the necessary care packages out to her wandering children? Sending rockets and shuttles one after another is too cost prohibitive. There's got to be a better way.

Would a giant circle of superconducting magnets do the trick? No doubt, most of us have asked that question at one point or another. Well, the U.S. Air Force has commissioned the answer, and David Shiga has written up the results of the preliminary study, in New Scientist Space. Boiling down Shiga's explanation--put a sled on the huge round track, 2 kilometers across, with cargo encased in a cone-shaped shell, and head to the races. The idea is that magnetic forces would gradually, over a period of hours, increase the speed of the load to about 10 kilometers a second, and then divert it into a launch tube, where a ramp set at thirty degrees would send the cargo flying. Friction from the tunnel would slow the cone down a bit, but not enough to keep it from breaking orbit. A rocket on the back of the cone would add steering ability. Easy as pie. Mind you, everything sent this way would have to be durable goods, be it satellite, food and water, other essentials like chocolate, or even weapons (this is the Air Force, after all.) We're talking 2,000gs of pressure here. Yes, I said 2,000 times the pressure of Earth's gravity, so this is strictly an inanimate object kind of transport system. Anything living that tried to hitch a ride wouldn't survive long enough to complain about the turbulence.

The preliminary study was encouraging enough for the Air Force to fund the next round of inquiry. This time it's a two year analysis, and hopefully will look more in depth at the healthy list of possible obstacles, chief among them being the atmosphere itself. There is the potential that overheating and trajectory difficulties from friction and wind could make the scheme unworkable. The team involved with the research is optimistic, however, that these problems are solvable. If all goes well in the next phase of study, the team hopes to build a small prototype of the ring to further test the feasibility of the concept. After that, they look for funding for the big kahuna.

Another notable concern about the project is that, with it's capacity to aim weapons anywhere in the world, the launch ring could itself become a primary target. That's understandable; I doubt the rest of the world would be happy about the potential weaponization of the launcher. However, that's what treaties (and missile defense systems) are for, and I suspect a few of the countries that could object might also have an item or two they want sent for a ride. I'm sure some kind of deal could be made to keep most countries happy. The rest of them aren't going to be happy with us anyway--that's where the missile defense system comes in.

If it all works, the giant loop-de-loop could provide a much cheaper method of getting goods that are tough enough to handle the trip out to where future space settlers will need them. They can start the first supermarket in space. Then they can open a chain of stores on all the multiple space stations that a constant flow of supplies will enable to mushroom throughout our friendly little solar system. Then an alien chain can come in to give them competition with cheaper, more abundant goods, produced by companies which outsource to the Gamma quadrant. Then injunctions and lawsuits will have to be filed to stop the big bad alien super-chain from unfair competition with the poor human mini-mart. Eventually, they're going to wonder why they didn't just let Wal-Mart set up shop in the beginning. Wal-Mart would have given The Andromeda Chain a run for their money.

How Far Would You Go?

How far would you go to improve your craftsmanship in your given field, and test the limits of what it's possible to accomplish? How many heretofore non work-related skills would you add to your repertoire just to push the boundaries? If you were a violinist, would you learn to scuba dive, and develop new water-friendly playing techniques, just so you could become the first violinist to play "Row, Row, Row Your Boat" under the sea? If you were a carpenter, would you train as a mountain-climber, and personally haul your tools and equipment up Mt. Everest, just so you could build the world's highest (vacant) birdhouse? If you were a surgeon, would you train in zero-gravity machines, and strap yourself to the walls of an airplane that looped like a roller coaster, creating near zero-gravity conditions in 22 second bursts, just so you could remove a cyst in almost weightless conditions?

They all sound a little on the wacky side to me, but one of these things actually happened. Can you guess which one? Yes, of course you're right, the one with the most details in the description is the real deal--the surgery. I'm sorry I couldn't make it more difficult to guess, but I had a hard enough time coming up with anything even remotely comparable in terms of preparatory challenge, foreign environment, new skills required, and seeming pointlessness.

Actually, pointlessness is the wrong word. It's obvious what the point is for developing surgical techniques for zero-gravity. We, the human race that is, want to head more people out into space over time--lots of people, in fact. Some of those people may require surgery. It probably won't be convenient to ship people back to earth every time they need to go under the knife, so clearly some new techniques are required. What I meant was that the cyst removal, a ten minute procedure, seems an insignificant task to warrant all that trouble and motion sickness. However, it would be foolish to attempt something more complicated, since this was the very first surgery on a human in weightless conditions. A cyst may be anti-climactic on one level, but I have to give them points for wisdom and restraint--and success--the cyst removal went off without a hitch.

Jamey Keaten, of The Associated Press, writes that a team of French doctors, performed the operation during a three hour flight on Wednesday, in an effort to determine the feasibility of surgery in space. The same medical team had already successfully operated on a rat under the similar conditions in 2003. According to Keaten, this is all part of a project backed by the European Space Agency. They're hoping to develop robots for future use in remote surgeries in space, or even on Earth, but Earth-guided. It's an ambitious goal--even more ambitious than playing "Row, Row, Row Your Boat" underwater. Whatever the end result of the quest for surgical space robots, these surgeons have performed their task admirably. They can truthfully say they have risen to the heights in their profession, and gone where no surgeon has gone before. I wonder of they were tempted to quote the cantankerous Dr. McCoy, saying something like, "Blast it Jim, I'm a doctor, not a bungee jumper!" Probably not. They would say, "Blast it Jeem," for starters. Do the French even watch Star Trek?