Jump to January 2007 archive page: 1 2

  • Lunar lander liftoff

    BonNova
    An artist's conception shows the Lauryad Lunar Lander in a Day-Glo desert.

    The starting gun is about to go off for this year's lunar lander marathon - an eight-month season that begins with the release of the rules and registration procedures, sometime in the next week or so, and reaches its climax at October's X Prize Cup with the running of the $2 million Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge.

    Last year, Texas-based Armadillo Aerospace almost won a $350,000 NASA-backed rocket prize in the first-ever Lunar Lander Challenge. This year, competition organizer Will Pomerantz expects about 10 teams - including Armadillo - to enter the vertical-takeoff-and-landing contest. One competitor, Los Angeles-based BonNova, is coming out of stealth mode just today with a fund-raising plan that involves an eBay auction.

    BonNova's chief engineer, Allen Newcomb, has played supporting roles in a couple of high-profile space projects already. During his two-year stint at SpaceDev, Newcomb worked on the avionics for the NASA-funded CHIPSat probe and for the hybrid rocket engine used on the privately funded SpaceShipOne rocket plane.

    Nowadays Newcomb does engineering jobs on a contract basis - and works on his Lunar Lander Challenge entry as a second full-time job. "I've been working 12 hours a day, seven days a week," he told me today.

    The rocket-powered craft is called the Lauryad - which is also the name of a spaceship in a romance/sci-fi novel written by actress Vanna Bonta, called "Flight." Bonta is BonNova's creative consultant (as well as a sometime commentator on sex in space). Newcomb said an engineer-machinist is working with him to build two Lauryads - one for each of the challenge's two competitions - at a machine shop in Napa, Calif.

    So far, the project has been getting by on small investments from contributors who have been promised shares of the potential payoff. If the eBay gambit comes through, Newcomb said he'll be able to turn building the Lauryad into "a paid job."

    He's offering sponsorship of the project for sale at eBay Motors. Based on my reading of the Web page, the purchaser would get half of any prize money - as well as advertising space on the rocket vehicles, other perks and the Lauryad I itself once all is said and done. Of course, I'm not the authority on the deal - you'll have to take a good look at the fine print.

    Armadillo Aerospace, headed by millionaire video-game programmer John Carmack, is considered the favorite for this year's competition. California-based Masten Space Systems, which narrowly missed getting all its paperwork together for last year's contest, is looming as a strong challenger. What makes Newcomb think he can beat out those worthies, as well as the other seasoned competitors who will round out the rocket field? Newcomb pleaded his case in an e-mail:

    "... Good engineering and design are required but not sufficient by themselves in a competition. John came close last year with just a few months' prep time before the contest. This year there will be several more competitors with more time, and many will probably complete the course. It's going to take more than that to win. It will take an attitude of competing not just against the course, but against the other competitors as well. Tie breakers include accuracy and speed, not unlike a race.

    "This is where I feel I will have a significant advantage over the also-rans. From the very beginning the vehicle and the engineering program are geared toward competition and beating the other players. I have extensive experience in motor racing competition at the national level, both as a crew member on Indy car teams and as a driver of my own racecar at the SCCA National Championship. Preparation and reliability are critical. The Lauryad Lunar Lander is designed like a racecar in that respect, and uses the latest in racing technology, which can be superior to conventional aerospace technology that has languished for over 30 years under the control of NASA."

    Newcomb said he's also getting advice from several other rocket experts. One of the engineers on his list, SkyCorp's Dennis Wingo, confirmed that he's been assisting Newcomb. "We'll do anything we can to help Allen," he said.

    Wingo said he briefly considered fielding his own entry in the Lunar Lander Challenge, and talked the idea over with another rocket entrepreneur in Alabama, Orion Propulsion's Tim Pickens.

    "We looked at this, and to do this right, we'd need about a million bucks," Wingo said. They checked around for sponsors with that kind of cash but couldn't put a deal together, he said.

    That may not bode well for Newcomb's shoestring effort, but Wingo said the effort was still worthwhile. "Hope springs eternal," he said.

    In any case, this should be a big season for the Lunar Lander Challenge. "Somebody's going to win it this year," Wingo said. "I think Carmack is pretty far along."

    In an e-mail, Carmack said Armadillo's plans were progressing, with another test flight taking place just last weekend:

    "I don't know when formal registration will take place, but I would guess soon. It took us six months to get our first permit, but AST [the Federal Aviation Administration's Office of Commercial Space Transportation] should be able to go somewhat faster for new entrants now. Our recent application for a permit to fly in Oklahoma has gone much faster. We are going to have to pay a significant chunk of money for our own insurance coverage to do test flights, though."

    Carmack's references to insurance expenses and regulatory approvals hint at all the hurdles that newcomers to the Lunar Lander Challenge will have to jump over, in addition to mastering the nuts and bolts of rocket science and fund-raising.

    But strangely enough, would-be competitors took heart from the fact that Carmack and his Armadillo Aerospace teammates weren't able to win anything last year, the X Prize Foundation's Pomerantz said: "When they didn't win, people saw the window of opportunity open up again."

    Newcomb is just one of those people, and there'll likely be other rocketeers who think they can fly through that window to victory. And why not? If an obscure airmail pilot named Charles Lindbergh could fly to glory back in 1927, why shouldn't hope still spring eternal 80 years later?

    To keep up with the season's twists and turns, check out Robin Snelson's Lunar Lander Challenge blog as well as Clark Lindsey's RLV and Space Transport News.

    Show more
    Explore related topics:

  • UFOs revisited

    In the wake of the O'Hare UFO incident, there's been a flurry of reports about unidentified flying objects - from Hawaii and North Carolina, for example. Is this an alien invasion? It's far more likely to be a clustering effect - stoked by public interest and perhaps this month's satellite shootdown as well.

    Charlotte Observer via MSNBC
    Eyewitness Charles Miller sent this
    photo to the Charlotte Observer.
    Click on the image to watch an
    MSNBC-TV segment about UFOs.

    Today's video roundup on MSNBC highlights the sighting in North Carolina on Jan. 24 as well as a streak seen in the skies over Hawaii on Jan. 26. These two incidents aren't as clear-cut as, say, this month's New Jersey meteorite strike or the Western space-junk fall, reported earlier in the month. But they're more amenable to explanation than November's sighting of an apparent disk-shaped object over Chicago's O'Hare International Airport.

    Based on the Charlotte Observer's report, the North Carolina sighting fits the profile for a fireball - that is, a piece of space rock or dust, or even spacecraft debris, plunging through the atmosphere. Witnesses reported seeing a blue-green-glowing object with a bright tail, zooming through the sky and, according to some accounts, breaking apart toward the end of its arc.

    The Hawaii streak, meanwhile, has been attributed to an aircraft contrail, although one witness said it looked like two "shooting stars" - which could also point to a meteor or space junk.

    Hundreds of pieces of space junk were created back on Jan. 11 when the Chinese blasted one of their own satellites with a ground-launched missile. As some of that debris falls and burns up in the atmosphere, skywatchers are expecting an uptick in UFO sightings. A spokesman for the North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD, speculated as much in an interview with the Observer - although he could not say whether a particular piece of debris was responsible for the North Carolina sighting.

    One reason for the uncertainty is that it takes some time to track all the small bits created by the shootdown. In fact, NORAD updated its database on Monday to provide coordinates for 517 pieces of debris - a huge increase from last week's debris count of 33 objects. As a result, the Center for Space Standards and Innovation has updated its visualization of the debris tracks (which I wrote about last Thursday).

    You really should check out the visualization, even though it might take a while to download all those megabytes of video data: The bunched-up bits of satellite debris look like a red cloud circling the globe. It's not hard to imagine that some of those bits would spark a wave of UFO reports as their orbits decayed.

    Incidentally, there's not much new to report about the O'Hare incident, other than to say that some purported photos have popped up. Are they hoaxes? You'll have to judge for yourself. I'll just note that it would be relatively easy to fake such photos, particularly under cover of anonymity.

    And in other UFO news, reports about a series of blasts in central Iran earlier this month have stirred up the international rumor mill. Was it a nuclear test? A sectarian attack? "Iran's Roswell"? Or will it turn out to be another flash in the pan?

  • Cloning Barbaro

    Will there ever be another horse like Barbaro? Maybe so, if it were up to cloning researcher Katrin Hinrichs. Theoretically, you could take a tissue sample from the now-dead racehorse, culture some cells and freeze them for future Barbaro clones, she said.

    "It just seems to make sense to do that when you have an animal that's genetically valuable," the veterinarian who heads Texas A&M's Equine Embryo Laboratory told me today.

    Not that you'd ever put a Barbaro clone in a race. First of all, the rules of thoroughbred racing bar horses produced through cloning, or even through artificial insemination. But there's a more fundamental reason why clones don't make good racers, Hinrichs said.

    "This is not a way to produce competitors, because cloning carries along with it so many things that could affect its robustness as a foal. ... If we were to clone Barbaro, that clone would be smaller than Barbaro, maybe not as wide across the chest," she said. The clones would likely lack the environmental factors that turned Barbaro into a champion - such as factors that are passed along from mare to foal during the early stages of pregnancy.

    Nevertheless, even though the clone might not be built like a champion racehorse, his sperm would pass along the genes of a champion. And that's how cloned horses would make their mark - as breeders, not racers.

    "A clone of Barbaro might not be a good racehorse, but the one thing is that the clone would produce the same foals that Barbaro would have produced," Hinrichs said.

    Hinrichs made her mark in the cloning field two years ago, when she and her American and French collaborators produced the first horse ever cloned in the United States. Only one other research group, Texas-based ViaGen, is up and running in the horse cloning race. And this race is more of a marathon than a six-furlong dash. Last year, Texas A&M's group produced just seven cloned foals, while ViaGen produced another five, Hinrichs said.

    "We're not exactly burning up the highway here - compared to, say, cattle, where they have dozens of labs working on this throughout the world," she said.

    The current policies of the top horse racing associations have served to hold down the commercial interest in cloned horses.

    "The main problem is that they can't be registered with any American-type breed registry," Hinrichs explained. "This is what would stop a thoroughbred from racing. But there are areas of competition that are very worthwhile that don't require registration."

    For example, Texas A&M's first cloned horse, Paris-Texas, is a genetic copy of Quidam de Revel, one of France's best-known jumping horses and most expensive studs. Hinrichs said Paris-Texas' progeny could well compete in future show-jumping events, carrying Quidam's champion genes into the race. ViaGen, meanwhile, has been cloning cutting horses as well as steeds built for other equine sports.

    Winning competitions isn't the only reason for researching animal cloning, of course. Hinrichs said genetic material preserved at facilities such as the Frozen Zoo in San Diego could someday give a boost to endangered species. "That offers an amazing resource for genes that are [otherwise] lost forever," she said.

    It's not yet clear whether the appropriate samples were taken from Barbaro before he died. But considering how much attention the topics of DNA analysis and cloning have gotten in the past few years, I'd have to think there's a suitable sampling of Barbaro's tissue already sitting in a flask of liquid nitrogen somewhere.

    Even though clones are currently barred from thoroughbred racing, Hinrichs said it still might be worth leaving your options open. Who knows? Maybe the rules will change in 50,000 years - which Hinrichs said is the estimated half-life for the potency of frozen sperm samples.

    Update for Jan. 31, 10:30 p.m. ET: The surgeon who treated Barbaro says that no sperm was taken from the horse before he was euthanized. Dean Richardson acknowledged that future fertility would have been a bonus, but "we only were interested in saving his life." No word about tissue samples, though.

    Update for Feb. 2, 9:30 p.m. ET: This story in the New York Daily News says Barbaro's owners have denied taking any sperm from Barbaro, or saving any DNA for cloning. Actually, just having a DNA sample would be insufficient for cloning, anyway. You'd need to preserve live cells. But I would side with Hinrichs on this matter: It just seems to make sense nowadays to set aside tissue, or at least DNA, from any genetically significant specimen.

    I know that sounds a little bit like the equine equivalent of "They Saved Hitler's Brain." And I know that the rules of thoroughbred racing currently rule out clones or artificially bred animals. But when we're talking about creatures worth millions of dollars, I don't see the harm in preserving a little bit of genetic posterity, for research purposes if for no other reason.

  • Pluto rises again

    The top scientist behind NASA's mission to Pluto, Alan Stern, says the icy world is making a comeback among astronomers: The debate over Pluto's planethood is resurging at scientific meetings, and even the International Astronomical Union hasn't yet delivered the final word on its planet definition. When all is said and done, it may be the IAU – or, as Stern terms it, the "Irrelevant Astronomical Union" – that ends up getting Plutoed, he says.

    You can probably tell already that Stern isn't a dispassionate observer when it comes to Pluto: He's the principal investigator for the New Horizons probe, which was launched a little more than a year ago to study the solar system's edge. The spacecraft is due to zoom by Jupiter next month, on its way to a 2015 rendezvous with Pluto and its icy neighbors.

    The IAU decision seemed to dis the $700 million mission even before it really hit its stride. But Stern says his disagreement rests on a deeper principle - that scientific classifications shouldn't be legislated in and out of existence.

    "Science does not work the way the legal system works," Stern, a planetary scientist at the Southwest Research Institute, told me today. "We didn't vote on relativity or quantum mechanics. We don't vote on any scientific discovery, because it just doesn't work that way. ... The IAU can vote that the sky is green, but that doesn't mean people will follow, because it's not."

    Stern said recent developments have borne out his view. He pointed to the agenda for the European Geosciences Union's annual meeting in Vienna this April, which headlines a forum titled "What Is a Planet?"

    "Astronomy is not the only discipline that deals with planets, and the criteria defined by astronomers might not be shared by planetary scientists, for example," the agenda abstract reads.

    Stern said the fact that the Europeans were revisiting the issue was just one indication of a turning tide. "The American Geophysical Union has been discussing something similar," he said. "The real planetologists aren't happy."

    Even the IAU is still working through the fuzzier parts of its definition - such as the idea that an honest-to-goodness planet has to have cleared out its celestial neighborhood. Many of Pluto's proponents have claimed that provision could disqualify the whole solar system, depending on how it's applied.

    But Stern says trying to patch up the IAU's definition of planethood just won't work. Instead, the status of Pluto (and other junior-partner planets, ranging from the asteroid Ceres to the iceball Eris) will likely be worked out step by step, as scientists learn more about the diversity of worlds in our own solar system and beyond.

    Stern is still hoping to organize a conference on planethood later this year, although he's had to delay his original schedule due to his work on New Horizons as well as some organizational glitches. "We will have this conference, and it will highlight all points of view, but there won't be any voting, I can tell you that," he said.

    The issue is sure to be revisited at scientific conferences for years to come, including the IAU's next general assembly, in 2009 in Rio de Janeiro.

    Stern said he's not banking on a quick reversal of Pluto's fortunes.

    "In 20 years, this will be just a memory," he said of the spat. "But I can't tell you whether it will come to the kind of culmination that's obvious in two years or four years. ... It's like the middle of an episode of 'CSI,' and we don't know how it's going to turn out."

    He is confident, however, that Pluto will eventually be back in the solar system's good graces: "I pity all the poor people who have removed Pluto from their posters of the solar system, because they're going to have to make them again," he said.

    For more on the current state of the controversy, check out Deborah Byrd's posting at Earth & Sky's blog.

    Maybe it'll all be settled by the time the New Horizons probe zooms by Pluto, on July 14, 2015. That day may seem far off, but Stern is already planning for the party. This week, he said he'd invite some guests who can't even walk by themselves yet, let alone dance to the strains of "I Miss Pluto."

    Stern and his colleagues are setting up a "New Horizons Kids" program to select about a half-dozen children who were born on the day the spacecraft was launched - Jan. 19, 2006. The program would also seek out another half-dozen kids who turned 10 on launch day - that is, with a birthdate of Jan. 19, 1996.

    "We'll follow those 10 or 12 kids as they grow to be 10 and 20 years old, respectively, while our dream machine New Horizons soars across the solar system," Stern said on the New Horizons Web site. "From time to time, we'll check in on our kids, and by the time the newborns from launch reach fourth grade and the 10-year-olds from launch reach the middle of college, we'll be at Pluto."

    Stern told me the kids would be treated as VIPs - "Very Important Pluto Personalities" - and would probably be in line for some perks when the mission hits prime time in 2015. So if you know someone who fits the chronological qualifications, send your nomination to plutokids@jhuapl.edu. Stern said the nomination should include the child's name, birthdate, a recent picture and the parents' names and e-mail contacts.

    Roughly 12,000 kids are born every day in the United States alone, so there should be plenty to choose from. The New Horizons team will announce the roster of Pluto Kids after next month's Jupiter flyby.

  • A view to a satellite kill

    The effects of China's anti-satellite test are graphically seen in an animation showing the debris that it created, and how all that junk matches up with the orbits of the international space station and other spacecraft. A satellite-tracking expert created the video clip to draw attention to the potentially perilous traffic in low Earth orbit - a space jam that just got worse.

    CSSI
    An animation shows the orbital
    tracks of the international space
    station and debris left behind by a
    Chinese anti-satellite test. Click on
    the image to watch the animation.

    Beijing's Jan. 11 missile strike didn't really hurt anybody ... yet. The only known casualty so far was an aging Chinese weather satellite, which was targeted to test the feasibility of knocking out spacecraft in orbit. It was the first test of an orbital space weapon since 1985 - and it worked.

    "We know from past experience that these types of events, whether they're ASAT [anti-satellite] tests or unintentional collisions, typically generate at least hundreds of objects. Some models estimate numbers in the thousands," said T.S. Kelso of the Center for Space Standards and Innovation, the research arm of Pennsylvania-based Analytical Graphics Inc.

    Kelso's animation pinpoints just a few pieces of that debris - the 33 objects that are being tracked publicly by the North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD. The video traces the space station's orbit as well, showing the potential for a smash-up at an orbital intersection.

    "It's just like two streets crossing. ... You don't need to have something the size of a truck hit the space station," he said. "You could have something the size of a BB, because of the orbital speeds."

    The Chinese satellite shootdown adds new twists to an already-complicated orbital traffic pattern. Of course, NORAD and NASA keep a close eye on the potential debris risk to the space station, spy satellites and other government-owned spacecraft, but Kelso said thousands of additional objects in low Earth orbit have to be watched as well.

    That's the rationale behind a project called Satellite Orbital Conjunction Reports Assessing Threatening Encounters in Space, or SOCRATES. Kelso maintains the 3,000-satellite SOCRATES database as part of his work for the center as well as for his CelesTrak satellite-tracking Web site.

    "We do a twice-daily report where we take all the unclassified data that the Air Force releases, and we do predictions for every payload," Kelso told me. "We know some satellite operators go out and look at that. It's not perfect, but it's better than closing your eyes and pretending nothing's going to happen."

    Kelso said SOCRATES typically picks up 1,000 events every day in which one orbiting object is estimated to come within 3 miles (5 kilometers) of another one. Today, for example, the Web site projected that two Russian Cosmos satellites would zoom within 100 feet (28 meters) of each other at a relative speed of 25,000 mph (11.121 km/sec).

    If satellite operators see that their assets might be involved in a close encounter, they would usually run their own numbers to assess the potential threat and take action if necessary.

    "For the overwhelming majority of stuff that gets up there, there isn't anybody who's going to call them up and say, 'Hey, something's getting close to your satellite. You may want to do some more analysis and see if you need to react,'" Kelso said.

    As space becomes increasingly crowded, due to the addition of more satellites as well as smash-ups like the one reported this month, SOCRATES could set the stage for a more formal approach to orbital traffic management.

    "It's our feeling that, at some point, somebody's going to need to step up," Kelso said. "What SOCRATES is intended to be is a proof of concept, to show that it can be done."

    For more about Kelso's analysis of the satellite-killing test, check out this page on the Center for Space Standards and Innovation's Web site. You'll find a higher-resolution, downloadable version of the satellite-tracking animation. And if you download the free AGI Viewer software, you can play around with the orbital paths to your heart's content. Think of it as a 3-D mapper for Earth's high frontier. 

  • SpaceX scratches test

    Last week, SpaceX founder Elon Musk said he would be putting off the next launch of his low-cost Falcon 1 rocket until mid-February at the earliest, due to a glitch involving the thruster control system. At the time, he still intended to go ahead with a static-fire engine test on the launch pad, on Omelek Island in the Pacific Ocean's Kwajalein Atoll. Today, however, Musk said the static-fire test would be delayed as well:

    "In an excess of caution, we decided not to proceed with the static fire this month. The vehicle is now back in the hangar, where the stages are being de-mated for careful inspection.

    "The static fire and launch window is now mid- to late February, due to Kwaj having to configure for an incoming Minuteman and then reconfigure back to handling a Falcon launch. During this downtime, we will take the opportunity to go over every inch of the rocket with a microscope again.

    "As Andy Grove said, 'Only the Paranoid Survive.'"

    Considering that the first Falcon 1 rocket launch failed due to an errant nut and a resulting fuel leak, you could cite yet another saying: "Once burned, twice shy."

  • Hope, hype and hydrogen

    Legislation to create multimillion-dollar prizes for hydrogen energy technology has been reintroduced as promised, and one of the bill's biggest boosters says it could come up for a vote "pretty quickly." But the H-Prize Act doesn't really address the energy priorities outlined in President Bush's State of the Union address - such as increased ethanol production or tougher fuel economy standards. So why not offer prizes for a wider range of energy alternatives, including ethanol and biodiesel, rather than just for hydrogen?

    "The reason to do a hydrogen prize is because we need a technological breakthrough there, whereas with ethanol and biodiesel, we already have some proven technologies that work," said Rep. Bob Inglis, R-S.C., who was the H-Prize Act's primary sponsor last year and is a co-sponsor this year.

    To be sure, there are challenges attached to all the alternative energy initiatives being floated: For example, many experts say the United States can't produce enough corn to satisfy the ethanol fuel demand as well as farm and food-industry requirements, and efforts to convert waste cellulose into ethanol still face technological hurdles as high as Iowa cornstalks. Some speculate that biofuels will end up being little more than a sideshow in the energy drama.

    But making the transition to a hydrogen economy is an even more speculative venture. It's true that hydrogen-driven fuel-cell cars would be the ultimate clean machines, but you'd have to build the infrastructure to produce, store and distribute the flammable gas safely. And as rocket scientist Robert Zubrin pointed out in his New Atlantis article, titled "The Hydrogen Hoax," nowadays the fuel is typically produced from natural gas or coal (fossil fuels!) using a relatively inefficient process.

    A report from the National Academy of Sciences said the transition to a hydrogen economy would take "many decades" - which sounds like the same time frame required for commercially viable fusion power.

    Nevertheless, Inglis and the H-Prize Act's other sponsors - as well as U.S. automakers such as GM and Ford - are hitching their hopes to a hydrogen star. Even converting natural gas to hydrogen, as inefficient as it is, could reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 60 percent, Inglis maintained.

    "Reforming natural gas to hydrogen is a significant step in the right direction, if you're concerned about the carbon footprint," Inglis told me.

    And eventually, hydrogen could be produced from water through electrolysis, with the electricity coming from solar cells, wind turbines or next-generation nuclear reactors. The gas might even be produced commercially through bacterial digestion of wastewater, just as other types of bacteria can turn manure into methane fuel (in some cases, even powering ethanol production plants).

    "My view is that we should be pursuing all these technologies - solar, more nuclear, biodiesel, ethanol, all of the above to help the No. 1 objective, which is improving the national security of the United States," Inglis said.

    Inglis sees job creation in the domestic energy and auto fields as the No. 2 objective, and cleaning up the air as No. 3.

    "That's the real beauty of getting all the way through to hydrogen, because you end up having a mobile source of energy that has only water vapor as an emission," he said. "The one that gets you all the way there is hydrogen, but we're going to need some breakthroughs to make it there."

    The H-Prize Act would provide incentives for those breakthroughs by offering prizes ranging from $1 million to $10 million - with private support potentially boosting the top prize to $50 million. Even though control of the House passed from Republican to Democratic hands, Inglis doesn't expect much change in last year's overwhelming (416-6) support for the legislation. This year, Rep. Dan Lipinski, D-Ill., is listed as the bill's primary sponsor.

    "Breakthroughs in hydrogen research and development, which I believe this bill will induce, unfortunately will not lower energy prices this year or next," Lipinski said Tuesday during a speech at the Washington Auto Show. "But it will help our country, and the world, address our long-term energy needs in a unique way. The time to act is now."

    Inglis told me there are early indications that "the House leadership may be willing to take this bill up pretty quickly, within the next several months, and that's very exciting."

    Last year, the H-Prize legislation got stuck in the Senate, and Inglis acknowledged that "we need to do some additional work to convince key senators to help us." But if the bill makes it through the Senate, "I think the administration will be very supportive," Inglis said.

    So what's the long-term prognosis for hydrogen fuel-cell power? On one hand, you have reports about H-power breakthroughs that could make fuel cells viable even for the small-scale engines used in lawnmowers and chainsaws. On the other hand, we're hearing about battery breakthroughs that could offer alternatives to the hydrogen economy. When it comes to energy technologies, how can anybody separate the hype from the reality? You can help out by adding your comments below.

  • Winning views from space

    NASA / JPL / SSI
    Saturn and its rings are backlit by the sun in an image from Cassini.

    A blue sunset on Mars and a backlit portrait of Saturn and its rings have taken the top spots in two photo contests celebrating NASA's most popular interplanetary missions. The Martian sunset comes from the Spirit rover, the Saturnian view comes from the Cassini orbiter - and the best thing about both those missions is that there's likely to be much, much more to come.

    More than 10,000 voters selected each winner from a field of a dozen-plus contenders in separate end-of-the-year online ballots. The Mars contest was timed to coincide with Tuesday's three-Earth-year anniversary of the Opportunity rover's landing on Mars (Spirit landed three weeks earlier than Oppy, on the other side of the Red Planet). The Saturn contest commemorated the landing of the Huygens probe on Titan on Jan. 14, 2005.

    NASA / JPL / Texas A&M / Cornell
    NASA's Spirit rover sent back this sunset image from Mars' Gusev Crater.

    The "People's Choice" pictures shed new scientific light on our celestial neighbors:

    • The full-view Saturn picture was taken while the ringed planet was eclipsing the sun last Sept. 15, from a distance of 1.3 million miles (2.2 million kilometers). The backlighting effect not only provided an ethereal view of Saturn itself, but also illuminated the rings - including the pale G and E rings and two newly discovered circlets. As a bonus, Earth is visible as a pale blue dot within the ring system. 
    • Spirit took its snapshot of the Martian sunset on May 19, 2005, using color filters that approximate what a human eye might see, with just a hint of exaggerated redness. The blueness of the Martian sunset is actually due to a dust-scattering effect that becomes most pronounced when the sun is near the horizon. The color scheme is the reverse of what we're used to seeing on Earth, with red sunsets in a blue twilight sky. But the principle is the same. Such sky pictures can tell scientists how dust and ice clouds are distributed in the atmosphere.

    There's much, much more to explore at the Mars and Saturn Web sites. On the Mars rover portal, maintained by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, you can watch a video commemorating this month's anniversaries, download podcasts and delve into images and mission updates to your heart's content.

    Meanwhile, the Cassini imaging team's Web site has just gotten an extreme makeover to highlight videos and maps from the mission to Saturn. Yet another not-to-be-missed area displays artwork inspired by Saturn and its moons - and you'll also find a "Sector 6" discussion forum for commenting on Cassini imagery.

    For more winning images from the past year, check out our "Year in Pictures" roundup of space imagery. You'll find the "People's Choice" snapshot from Saturn among the top picks.

    Yet another huge Saturn image - showing the planet and the rings from almost directly above - is still being readied for release by Cassini's imaging team, but at the Planetary Society's Weblog, Emily Lakdawalla provides a preview. Looks like a future "People's Choice" winner is in the works.

  • Energy prizes re-energized

    As President Bush prepares a renewed "State of the Union" push to break America's addiction to oil, lawmakers and industry types are redoubling efforts to create multimillion-dollar prizes for automotive energy alternatives.

    Like Bush's own Advanced Energy Initiative, which was announced during last year's State of the Union address, the prize initiatives made some progress last year but didn't quite hit the lofty goals that were originally set:

    • The Automotive X Prize, established by the same folks who awarded $10 million for the first private-sector spaceflights back in 2004, would reward innovations in auto energy efficiency. Organizers had hoped to unveil the program and start signing up competitors last year, but they're still in talks with a potential title sponsor. "I don't want to predict when we'll be done talking," said Lane Soelberg, vice president of marketing and partners for the X Prize Foundation.
    • The H-Prize would be a federally backed competition to encourage breakthroughs in hydrogen fuel systems, ranging from fuel-cell-powered cars to the infrastructure required to keep them on the road. Legislation to authorize prizes of up to $10 million sailed through the House on a 416-6 vote last year, but fizzled out in the Senate. Today the sponsors of the bill - Reps. Bob Inglis, R-S.C., and Dan Lipinski, D-Ill. - announced that the bill would be refiled on Tuesday.

    Some folks might say one of the world's largest industries shouldn't need a multimillion-dollar prize, whether privately or federally funded, to pursue technologies that could lead to multibillion-dollar profits. But Soelberg said prizes can provide an extra push, particularly for innovators who may be flying under the big automakers' radar.

    "If you're going to make a major difference in the industry, sooner or later the industry leaders are going to be involved. ... If [a technology] has teeth and can actually get picked up, why not be the people who make it possible to bring it to market?" he told me today.

    The X Prize Foundation was able to kick-start new approaches to spaceflight with a $10 million prize, backed by a down payment from the Ansari family. That $10 million figure also surfaced when the foundation announced a genetics prize last year. However, Soelberg said $10 million wouldn't be enough of an enticement for the automotive competition.

    "It's fair to say that the prize would most likely need to be larger than prizes we've launched in the past," he said.

    Soelberg promised that the contest would not be "biased toward one particular fuel or technology" - be it hydrogen or ethanol, biodiesel or plug-in hybrid, or even a more efficient gasoline-burner. The winning car would have to put in a performance equivalent of 100 miles per gallon of gasoline, but it would also have to be "something that is marketable and has demand," he said.

    "It needs to be more than a stripped-down commuter car with a couple of fuel cells," he said. That's not to say the contest will force all the competitors into a one-size-fits-all standard, however. Soelberg said different competition classes would likely be established for alternative concept cars as well as standard four-passenger vehicles.

    Although the rules still have to be set, competitors would be required to pass through "very specific benchmark goals and gates," culminating in an actual road rally, Soelberg said. The plan is to unveil the prize program this year, although the precise timing depends on how quickly the sponsorship talks wind up, he said.

    The same fuzzy schedule applies to the H-Prize program: Last year, the enabling legislation was fast-tracked through the House but died when the clock ran out in the Senate. This session, the bill's backers are starting earlier, with the enthusiasm over alternative energy driving them forward like a jolt of wind-generated electricity.

    "Moving to a hydrogen economy is the ultimate triple play with perfect alignment between the local and national interest," Inglis said in today's news release. "We can create jobs, clean up the air and make America more secure by breaking dependence on Middle Eastern oil."

    The 10-year program would set aside up to $70 million in federal funds, with the hope that another $40 million would come from private capital. Here's how the figures break down:

    • Technological advancements: Four prizes of up to $1 million would be awarded every other year in the categories of hydrogen production, storage, distribution and utilization.
    • Prototypes: One prize of up to $4 million would be awarded every other year for prototype hydrogen-powered vehicles that meet performance goals.
    • Transformational technologies: One grand prize of up to $10 million in federal funds, supplemented by up to $40 million in private funds, would be awarded for "development of wells-to-wheels breakthrough technologies."

    Another $2 million would be budgeted annually for administrative and advertising costs. Following the X Prize formula, the H-Prize program would be administered on the Energy Department's behalf by a private, nonprofit organization.

    "The goal of the prize is to develop the most nongovernmental way to break through to a hydrogen economy," Inglis said. "We want to harness the power of the American 'can do' spirit and innate human competitive drive."

    Of course, hydrogen is considered an energy carrier rather than an energy source. (Seen any hydrogen mines lately?) But some researchers have concluded that a wind-hydrogen energy economy makes the most sense in the long haul - and such a system is being put to the test right now in Norway.

    The problem usually comes in converting from the old way of doing things to something new - and if a prize can somehow change the short-term economic equation and give a push to that process, so much the better. But it has to be the right kind of prize.

    How would you structure a prize to encourage energy independence and efficiency while saving the world? Feel free to add your ideas below.

  • SpaceX hits a snag

    Elon Musk - the millionaire founder of Space Exploration Technologies, better known as SpaceX - often says there's a reason why rocket science is a stereotypically hard thing to do. Further proof of that came today, when Musk announced that the long-anticipated second launch of his Falcon 1 rocket would have to be delayed until next month due to a problem with the craft's control system.

    This Falcon 1 mission is purely a demonstration launch, to show the Pentagon that SpaceX's rockets are ready to put military communication satellites into orbit under the terms of a $100 million contract. If Musk is successful, the Falcon system could open the way toward increased competition in the launch industry and help bring down the cost of access to space.

    SpaceX had hoped to conduct a static-fire engine test today on the rocket's launch pad at Kwajalein Atoll (a.k.a. Kwaj), which is more often used for the Pentagon's missile defense tests. The static-fire test is usually part of the final buildup toward launch. But Musk is being extra-careful about this launch - particularly because the Falcon 1's maiden mission failed in November 2005 due to a fuel leak caused by an overlooked corroded nut.

    It's taken more than a year to work toward this second launch, and now it will take a little while longer. Here's what Musk had to say on SpaceX's Web site:

    "During our final check-outs prior to static fire, we uncovered an anomaly with the thrust vector control (TVC) pitch actuator on the second stage that will result in launch being pushed to February. Since this is not used during the static fire, we have decided to push forward with that test in order to acquire valuable data on engine ignition, pad acoustics, and the overall system response. The static fire is now planned to occur between Saturday and Tuesday. This test will proceed very slowly and then only burns for about four seconds, so will not be webcast to avoid boring people silly. We will post a video afterwards.

    "Upon completion of the static fire, we will take the rocket back into the hangar to thoroughly investigate the TVC issue.  With the range available to us only until January 23 (Kwaj needs to reconfigure for an incoming Minuteman mission), this means launch is now planned for mid-February.  As I've mentioned previously, don't hold your breath for this launch. Given the large number of robustness improvements and the fact that our vehicle/pad health verification system has increased from about 30 checks to almost 1,000, shifts in the launch date are to be expected. Overall, the SpaceX team is quite happy with the smooth progress so far."

    Private space consultant Charles Lurio said in an e-mail that the delay to mid-February was no surprise:

    "While I hope the static firing goes well, my reaction to the 'launch delay' is that it really isn't one. The most likely scenario was always that the earliest launch attempt would come later. Yawn."

    To find out how the static-fire test turns out, keep checking the SpaceX update page over the weekend - and look in on the "Kwajalein Atoll and Rockets" Weblog, a totally unofficial site maintained by Kimbal Musk, Elon's brother.

    Update for 9:20 p.m. ET Jan. 24: SpaceX says the static-fire test was not conducted after all. More information should become available on Jan. 25. Stay tuned...

  • Dig into Egypt online

    Egyptologist Betsy Bryan and her Johns Hopkins University team are gearing up for another field season at the Mut Temple Precinct, a place of archaeological wonders in the environs of ancient Luxor. During last year's expedition, archaeologists turned up a 3,400-year-old statue of Tutankhamun's grandmother, Queen Tiy. Over the years, Bryan has also gleaned lots of information about sex, drugs and rock and roll in ancient Egypt. You can keep tabs on this year's exploits by checking out Johns Hopkins' Egypt expedition diary - and don't forget to browse the archives as well. For a recap of last year's highlights, sit back and watch this audio slide show.

  • Molecular Pony Express

    UC-Riverside
    A schematic shows anthraquinone molecules (consisting of three
    linked gray benzene rings and pink oxygen atoms) as they
    "carry" carbon dioxide molecules across a copper surface.

    Researchers have designed a molecule that can carry a couple of carbon dioxide molecules with it as it "walks" in a straight line. It may sound like a stupid molecule trick, but the technique is expected to lead to the new drug-delivery techniques and nanotech assembly lines.

    "This is an unprecedented step forward toward the realization of molecular-scale machinery," Ludwig Bartels, a chemistry professor at the University of California at Riverside, said today in a news release. "Our experiments show a means to transport molecules reliably. This will become as important to the molecular machinery of the future as trucks and conveyor belts are for factories of today."

    Walking molecules aren't exactly uncommon. In fact, we literally couldn't live without them. For example, hemoglobin transports oxygen from the lungs to your cells, and other types of proteins transport nutrients within those cells. This archived article looks into your cellular machinery, and you'll definitely want to check out this interactive graphic to watch your proteins in action.

    In 2005, Bartels and his colleagues made a splash by designing a molecule that could move in a straight line on a flat surface. The latest research, published today on the Science Express Web site, describes a molecule that can pick up, carry and release two carbon dioxide molecules.

    "It's significant, because we wouldn't expect atoms to move that way," Talat Rahman, a physics professor from the University of Central Florida and a co-author of the study, explained in a UCF news release. "Atoms tend to move randomly, like dust particles, and getting them to move in a specific direction will help in our understanding and manipulating of the region around atoms."

    The molecule that Bartel's group used is anthraquinone, which consists of three fused benzene rings with one oxygen atom on each side (C14H8O2). UC-Riverside says the organic compound is widely used in the pulp industry for turning cellulose from wood into paper.

    The researchers set the molecules down on a highly polished copper surface, and used a scanning electron microscope to monitor the molecular Pony Express. 

    "Carrying a load slows the molecule down," Bartels said. "Attachment of one CO2 molecule makes the carrier need twice as much energy for a step, and a carrier with two CO2s requires roughly three times the energy. This is not unlike a human being carrying heavy loads in one or both hands."

    To get a clearer picture of the molecules in action, check out the videos at Bartels' Web site.

    The type of molecule used for Bartels' latest trick represents just one small step toward a nanoscale leap. "Next, we would like to be able to make one go around corners, rotate its cargo or send out photons to tell us where it is," Bartels said.

    Eventually, molecular contraptions could be used as multipurpose tools to assemble larger components. They might also be able to carry therapeutic molecules to just the right place to cure an ailing cell - or, for that matter, kill off a cancer cell.

    Bartels said creating multipurpose molecules will take some time, but maybe not all that much time.

    "Ten years ago, a cell phone could just place calls, nothing else," he observed. "Now it plays MP3 files, organizes your day, lets you send e-mails and browse the Web."

    In addition to Bartels and Rahman, the research team included K. L. Wong, G. Pawin, K.-Y. Kwon, X. Lin, T. Jiao, U. Solanki and R. H. J. Fawcett from UC-Riverside, as well as S. Stolbov from UCF.

  • SpaceX schedule shift

    The millionaire founder of Space Exploration Technologies (a.k.a. SpaceX) says the preparations for the next launch of the company's Falcon 1 rocket have been set back a day. That means a key engine test on the Pacific island launch pad is due on Friday, and the actual launch will be Monday at the earliest. Here's what Elon Musk had to say on his update page:

    "The static fire has moved to Friday (California time) and launch to Monday, January 22. We have not encountered any new issues – the shift in timing is primarily to provide for additional risk reduction activities on site, as we continue to operate with a healthy paranoia.

    "As stated in the prior update, there is a high likelihood that the dates will continue to change, given the broad array of vehicle robustness upgrades. This will remain true all the way up to the final few seconds of the countdown, as our new health verification software executes hundreds of systems checks between engine ignition at T-3 sec and liftoff at T-0, when the hold down clamps release the rocket for flight. This is a critical phase for verification, given that the vehicle will have undergone substantial state changes throughout the first stage and avionics system."

    Even though the Falcon 1 launch is purely for demonstration purposes, it's being closely watched - particularly in light of the rocket's failure during its maiden launch in November 2005. If the Falcon rises without a hitch this time, it could represent a significant step in Musk's crusade to lower the cost of access to space and push humanity further toward becoming a multiplanet species.

    Eventually, Musk intends to build a spacecraft capable of sending humans into orbit - as well as rockets that could someday take people beyond Earth orbit. But first things first: Let's see how the next few days go.

  • Deep questions answered

    What is the universe expanding into? How could we possibly make trips to other star systems? What happens when two black holes meet? Is a "theory of everything" within reach? Such are the questions that Cosmic Log readers posed for Stephen Hawking, arguably the world's most famous physicist as well as the world's most famous quadriplegic.

    We've shipped off a selection of queries for Dr. Hawking to consider, but we can already address the questions we've just listed, as well as other questions relating to his favorite music - and even his favorite episode of "The Simpsons."

    The questions we sent Hawking's way via e-mail focus mainly on the big mysteries: God, life, the universe and everything - plus space travel and weightlessness, of course. It'll take weeks for the good doctor to reply, and there's no ironclad guarantee he'll actually find the time to do it.

    But in the meantime, Hawking's pronouncements continue to pop up in the news. Just today, for example, he caused a stir by observing that human activities are affecting Earth's climate in ways that "may forever change life on Earth." Some of the answers to frequently asked questions can be gleaned from Hawking's past statements, and others can be pieced together based on current cosmological theory.

    In that vein, then, here are the likely answers to some of the deep (and not-so-deep) questions. If some of these answers aren't quite right, or up to the standards you'd expect from Stephen Hawking, that's my fault alone - and I'll look forward to your corrections and amplifications in the comments section:

    N. Anthony: "Where does the universe end? Is it infinite? I've heard that the universe expands at the speed of light, but what is it expanding into?"

    Here's what Hawking has to say on his Web site about the nature of our universe in four-dimensional space-time:

    "... James Hartle of the University of California Santa Barbara, and I have proposed that space and imaginary time together, are indeed finite in extent, but without boundary. They would be like the surface of the Earth, but with two more dimensions. The surface of the Earth is finite in extent, but it doesn't have any boundaries or edges. I have been round the world, and I didn't fall off."

    Like other cosmologists, Hawking would say the idea that the universe is expanding "into" something gives the false impression that we can perceive that "something." We often think of the expanding universe as the surface of an inflating balloon - but this analogy is imperfect, because we're trying to think of our three-dimensional space as a two-dimensional surface. Physicist Michio Kaku provided an explanation of all this a few years ago - an explanation that's actually a condensation of a longer answer he provided as part of the "Stephen Hawking's Universe" project at PBS.

    Based on Hawking's no-boundary proposal, it wouldn't make sense to ask what came before the first instant of the universe's existence, or what will come after the last instant - just as it doesn't make sense, at least technically, to ask what on the earth's surface is north of the North Pole, or south of the South Pole. (Yes, I know there's "up" and "down," but I hope you see what I mean.)

    Also, there would be no "edge" or "end" to the universe. If you extended a straight line in one direction, that line would theoretically come right back to the starting point. Of course, you'd never be able to check that out experimentally because the universe is so mindbogglingly big.

    Gene Seawright: "If the universe is ever expanding, why will the galaxy Andromeda eventually collide with the Milky Way galaxy?"

    On the largest scales, the expansion of the universe indeed is accelerating. But on smaller scales, galaxies are moving to and fro within local groups, influenced in part by gravitational interactions. The expected collision between the Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy - in about 3 billion years or so - is the result of such interactions.

    Tim Nixon: "If the human race must move beyond Earth and colonize other planets in order to survive, how can we overcome the vast distances of space and the limitations of traveling at the speed of light?"

    Hawking addressed this part of the question not all that long ago, in his interview with the BBC:

    "Sooner or later, disasters such as an asteroid collision or nuclear war could wipe us all out. But once we spread out into space and establish independent colonies, our future should be safe. There isn't anywhere like the Earth in the solar system, so we would have to go to another star.

    "If we used chemical fuel rockets like the Apollo mission to the moon, the journey to the nearest star would take 50,000 years. This is obviously far too long to be practical, so science fiction has developed the idea of warp drive, which takes you instantly to your destination. Unfortunately, this would violate the scientific law which says that nothing can travel faster than light.

    "However, we can still within the law, by using matter/antimatter annihilation, at least reach just below the speed of light. With that, it would be possible to reach the next star in about six years."

    Moreover, if we could travel that close to the speed of light, the trip would seem to take less time to the travelers onboard their matter/antimatter-powered craft, thanks to relativistic time dilation. This little applet demonstrates how the travel time would be shorter for the folks on board than for the folks watching from Earth, depending on how fast you travel.

    Check out this archived article for more about antimatter drives and other exotic ideas for interstellar propulsion.

    Steven Vanhee: "What happens if two black holes meet? Will the 'strongest' consume the other one, eventualy reducing the universe to one, triggering a second big bang?"

    Physicists suspect that black holes do indeed collide with each other, setting off huge blasts in the process. But in Hawking's view, black holes don't last forever. In fact, one of Hawking's biggest contributions to physics is the view that black holes eventually fizzle out, due to a phenomenon known as "Hawking radiation." So the scenario of all the black holes being swept up into one big monster would be highly unlikely.

    John B.: "Do you believe string theory is the Holy Grail of modern physics and if so how has it or will it impact our understanding of the universe both great and small?

    In his BBC interview, Hawking stuck to his view that physicists could arrive at a "theory of everything" within 20 years - and that such a theory might allow scientists to "read the mind of God." However, in his book "A Briefer History of Time," Hawking speculates that there might not be one single theory to explain the whole universe. Instead, we might use a collection of theories to navigate the cosmos at different scales - just as we use maps at different scales to find our way around town or around the globe.

    Brian: "What are your views about the current debate in the U.S. regarding fully funding stem-cell research, and what would you say to those who oppose such research that might lead to a cure for your condition?"

    A few months ago, Hawking told The Independent that banning the use of human embryos for stem-cell research would be like banning the use of organs from accident victims:

    "The fact that the cells may come from embryos is not an objection because the embryos are going to die anyway. It is morally equivalent to taking a heart transplant from a victim of a car accident."

    Later, he told The Guardian, "We throw away many embryos in IVF [in-vitro fertilization] and no one objects. Isn't it better to use a few embryos to save lives?"

    Of course, the debate over stem cells is more complicated than the organ transplant issue, in that an embryo can't give its consent for stem-cell extraction.

    Thomas Ashby: "What is your favorite music? Who are your favorite musicians?"

    Hawking's Web site provides the straight scoop: "I mainly listen to classical music: Wagner, Brahms, Mahler etc., but I like pop as well. What I want is music with character." Hawking said he went with his son to a Depeche Mode concert, "and my ears were ringing for the next 24 hours."

    Robert LaNicca: "What is your favorite 'Simpsons' episode?"

    One of his favorites - if not the favorite - would have to be "They Saved Lisa's Brain," the 1999 episode in which Hawking himself comes to Lisa's rescue. You'll find a screenshot from that episode posted on Hawking's Web site. Here's a snippet of dialogue from the episode:

    Lisa: Oh, Dr. Hawking,  we had such a beautiful dream. What went wrong?
    Hawking: Don't feel bad, Lisa.  Sometimes, the smartest of us can be the most childish.
    Lisa: Even you?
    Hawking: No. Not me. Never.

Jump to January 2007 archive page: 1 2