Chris Lintott’s Universe

I’ve been negative often enough on this blog and in print about the scientific potential of the International Space Station, and had some interesting arguments as a result. 

If they’re going to produce spin off technology like this, though, combining space and wine, I may have to reconsider.

Catchup post from DotAstronomy

One of the most interesting talks on day one of the was by Emily Lakdawalla from the Planetary Society, about armchair space exploration.

The development of this field has been incredible, with rapid release of ‘raw’ data now the rule rather than the exception. Emily made the excellent point that in learning to use their digital cameras and how to share the results people are already learning the skills they need to make use of that data. Similarly, software like powerpoint can be used to produce simple animations – Emily’s example was Encledus passing behind Dione as seen from the Cassini orbiter. This is useful scientific data because it helps refine the moons’ orbits, but it also looks pretty good.

The example that made my jaw drop, though, is this one. Ted Stryk is a biologist an english professor who in his spare time reprocessed the data from Voyager 2′s flyby of Uranus, which took place back in 1986. One of the joys of exploring the outer planets – as more recent missions like Cassini have reminded us – is the way that the moons change from being dots in an image to being worlds in their own right. Uranus was no exception – here’s Ariel as it appeared on January 1st 1986.

The sad thing is that this is essentially the only view Voyager had – the part of Ariel that is in the dark would have to wait for the next mission, which even now, twenty years later, has yet to hit the drawing board let along the launch pad. Except that, thanks for Ted, we don’t have to wait. He reprocessed the data, and suddenly the dark side of Ariel appeared, lit by Uranus-shine just as you sometimes see our Moon lit by Earthshine.

What a stunning project. Go and see the other moons.

<b>Update</b>:Emily emailed to point out I’d posted the wrong before image. It’s correct now.

This is a screenshot from NASA TV’s media channel coverage of the GLAST telescope launch. All seems to be going well so far, but commentary is being provided by the chap you can see here, running up and down along the large bank of screens in front of him.

I thought the signature image for any mission’s beginning was ranks of serried mission control types – is spaceflight now so easy one person can monitor everything? Impressive work, whoever he is.

P.S. More on GLAST once it reaches its final orbit.
P.P.S. They’re now showing several mission control type rooms. I’m reassured. This is the telemetry team…

Try to keep up with everything that’s happening

Yes, there is ice just beneath the surface at the Phoenix landing site, and they’ve touched the ground.

The shuttle is on its way back to the Space Station.

The launch of GLAST is just a few days away.

We got time on Hubble to follow up a Galaxy Zoo object, the Voorwerp.

And if that wasn’t enough, I’m at the AAS meeting in St Louis and full written, audio and video reports will start appearing on Astronomy Cast Live and on this site. Come along for the ride.

The next few nights are perfect for viewing the International Space Station, as it’s in almost permanent sunlight. You can read my short note about it in the Times, or just go to the excellent Heavens Above for personalized predictions.

There are times when blogging is a way of spreading news or sharing experiences, and there are times when it feels more like extended therapy. In the latter category lie my attempts to come to terms with manned spaceflight. I’ve always wrestled with this; I believe in the inspirational power of rising above our atmosphere and I’d go like a shot if you asked me – even if all you were offering was a one way ticket to Mars with my name on it. As a scientist, though, it’s difficult for me to justify the return. (There’s a case to be made for non-astronomical science, I admit, although I’m still not convinced by that).

On top of that existential dilemma is added the problem of assessing NASA’s current plans, which call for a rapid retirement for the shuttle and the development of a new set of launchers (as anyone who watched March’s Sky at Night will know (link opens in Realplayer).

I embarked on the round of interviews that became that program as a sceptic as to whether any of these ambitious plans, including a return to the Moon, would ever come off, but returned believing that NASA were playing a clever game. The political issue is the ‘gap’ – the time between the retirement of the shuttle and the launch of the first of the new generation. Whatever the attitudes of the new president, it doesn’t seem politically viable to me that the US would abandon all hope of a manned space program at a time when the Chinese in particular are increasing their presence in space.

This is a gamble, though, and the decision to demolish the shuttle program as quickly as possible, designed partly to make sure the commitment to press on is absolute (I think we may already have passed the point where it’s more expensive to build new shuttles or renovate the existing ones than to build Orion, at least on paper). The point of bringing this up now is that three posts from three different blogs yesterday illustrate the nature of the gamble we – or rather NASA – are taking.

First, Universe Today reported on John Glenn’s criticism of the current plans. Glenn – Apollo astronaut, the oldest man to fly on the shuttle and once a US senator – argues for a longer term investment and criticises the decision to rely on Russian vehicles to travel to and from the station.

That concern is underlined by the recent Soyuz landing, carrying three crew members down from the ISS. As James Oberg explains, something went badly wrong, sending the crew onto a ballistic trajectory (which is as scary as it sounds) and landing 400 km or so off course. The cause is still unknown, but Oberg’s conclusion is worrying :

After decades of service, it’s hard to imagine that the Soyuz has a design flaw of any significance, so the issue here may instead be fabrication quality. This is a frightening possibility, since the Soyuz manufacturer, the Energia Korolev Rocket and Space Corp., in Moscow, has had to double its Soyuz production rate in preparation for the increase of the space station crew from three to six people next year. .

Is it me, or would that make you think twice about relying on Soyuz for roughly five years worth of trips to and from the ISS?

Where does this leave us? With a sense of frustration, perhaps, because it’s the 21st century now and it’s supposed to be the future. Whatever you think of the ISS – and it’s an impressive piece of kit whatever it does – it’s hard not to echo Phil’s response to comparisons between real 2008 and fictional 2001.

For those of us who want to believe in making fiction reality (and ‘wanting’ is about as sophisticated an analysis as I’ve ever come up with), there’s an overwhelming desire to just shout ‘GET ON WITH IT’. That wouldn’t help, and if blogging about this really is therapy then I have, as usual, talked myself into a corner.

P.S. ESA are looking for astronauts, although it’s not clear what they’d be doing for the next ten years or so – or if the worst happens and funding gets cut across the board what unemployed astronauts do.

With Atlantis docked with the space station there’s no denying that manned spaceflight makes for compelling watching. The first spacewalk has been postponed due to a mystery (but non-life threatening) illness to astronaut Hans Schlegel, and blogger Damaris Sattia is reporting that there may be a problem with the thermal blanket on the shuttle.

While attention is focussed on the station, I’ve been continuing my devate with Mark Hempsell about whether the UK should join the ISS project. My latest response is below, and previous posts are here, here and here.

Dear Mark

Chris

With space shuttle Atlantis having successfully reached orbit as the first of six planned shuttle flights this year, it seems a good time to return to my debate with Mark Hempsell about whether the UK should invest in the International Space Station. Following the first parts of our debate here and here, I asked Mark to elaborate on the type of science that could be done on the space station. Here’s what he wrote:

To give a taste of the sort of science the UK is already missing out on
consider the programme conducted on Mir and Space Shuttle and
continuing on the ISS which is studying calcium loss in the bones which has already
contributed a lot to medical understanding of osteoporosis and to
exploring preventive measures and cures. Or consider the tissue culture working
contributing to growing replacement organs of transplants with the
patent’s own DNA using cloning techniques. Or consider the research into protein

And although in the UK there is a group who belittle this science as in
some way second rate, I think if you suffered from Osteoporosis or were
awaiting a life saving transplant (with resulting lottery of whether a
suitable donor will die at the right time) your perspective of what is
important science research may differ. The truth is Britain is staying
out of all the space research that will actually have an impact on peoples’
everyday lives, which, by the way, is completely contrary to the UK
Government slogan “putting space to work” i.e. only spending money
where there is a proven direct economic return which cannot be said of
astronomy and space physics.

I’m publishing a conversation with Mark Hempsell, designer of a proposed British addition to the International Space Station. For the first part of the debate, see this post, and then come back to read Mark’s latest.

I do not agree that, in the context of Government spending, £500
million is a lot of money and indeed UK space based astronomy and space science
is already funded at this level (a third of the UK civil space spend).
This is why we had Beagle 2 and Britain will have involvement in Exomars. It
is also a myth that human space flight is expensive, on average the cost
of science by robotic spacecraft and science on Space Stations is about
the same – around £20 million per experiment.

Finally the deal you offer; that if the UK were to invest in human
space flight we should go for Moon Mars and by pass the ISS? Well if we did
want involvement in the Moon / Mars initiative we would have to cooperate
with some or all the partners on the ISS. The HEM is not only a politic way
to demonstrate the UK can be a partner in such enterprises but the design
we have presented would develop radiation protection, plastic habitat
structures and a generic avionic suite – all of which would be new and
valuable contributions to missions to Moon and Mars.

In a bad mood last week (post conference blues seems as good an excuse as any) I was rather scathing about a proposal for the UK to build two new habitat modules for the International Space Station. It’s something of an embarrassment that the British flag is on the side of the station, although we haven’t contributing a single penny to its cost. The modules would look something like this :

but would cost (including running costs) around $1 billion. Treating my post with more respect that it deserves, the lead designer Mark Hempsell responded, and we’ve been arguing the case via email. I’ll be posting our argument here over the next few days, but feel free to join in in the comments.

Mark writes :

Why should the UK fund this rather than more astronomy and space physics
where we already have a strong capability?

The Habitation Extension Module is the most ambitious of a range of
options the UK Human Campaign has put forward highlighting this iniquity, and
if this were the one selected, it, and a corresponding science programme,
would need annual expenditure at a similar level to that currently enjoyed
by the UK’s astronomers and still leave the UK the lowest spending by
GDP nation in ESA by a very considerable margin.

My response :

Dear Mark,

Let’s make a deal. You can have your half a billion pounds for manned spaceflight if we use it to do something useful and inspiring, and that means going beyond the ISS.

The debate continues here.