What Goes Up Must Come Down

Here’s the problem. When you’ve got an object as big as this 10-ton satellite, some of it will survive the plunge to Earth. That’s especially true when there are hardened pieces.

mir_atmosphere.jpgIt looks like a US spy satellite is out-of-control and will soon plunge back into the Earth’s atmosphere. It’s happened before.

I remember when Mir plunged to Earth. The photo on the left shows what was left as the debris passed over Fiji.

Back in 1979 pieces of Skylab fell on Australia. No one was injured.

The question is, is this dangerous? Uh… yeah. Though there is some conflict in that opinion.

I just checked Google’s news site and found “Falling US satellite is not dangerous – NASA” from Russia’s Interfax news agency. That’s a relief.

Oops. Hold on. Here’s what the Times of London says: “Threat as 10-ton satellite set to crash back to Earth”

So, it’s either not dangerous or a threat. Got it?

Here’s the problem. When you’ve got an object as big as this 10-ton satellite, some of it will survive the plunge to Earth. That’s especially true when there are hardened pieces.

From the New York Times:

John E. Pike, the director of Globalsecurity.org in Alexandria, Va., said that if the satellite in question was a spy satellite, it was unlikely to have any kind of nuclear fuel, but that it could contain toxins, including beryllium, which is often used as a rigid frame for optical components.

The speculation is this is a spy satellite, launched in 2006 and quickly lost. It probably went up with hydrazine for thrusters. That’s really nasty stuff.

When properly used in space:

The catalyst chamber can reach 800° C&#185 in a matter of milliseconds, and they produce large volumes of hot gas from a small volume of liquid hydrazine, making it an efficient thruster propellant.” – Wikipedia

When improperly encountered on the ground:

Hydrazine is highly toxic and dangerously unstable, especially in the anhydrous form. Symptoms of acute exposure to high levels of hydrazine in humans may include irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat, dizziness, headache, nausea, pulmonary edema, seizures, coma, and it can also damage the liver, kidneys, and central nervous system. The liquid is corrosive and may produce dermatitis from skin contact in humans and animals. Effects to the lungs, liver, spleen, and thyroid have been reported in animals chronically exposed to hydrazine via inhalation. Increased incidences of lung, nasal cavity, and liver tumors have been observed in rodents exposed to hydrazine. – Wikipedia

The Earth is mainly covered by water. Even the land portion of Earth is sparsely populated in most spots. The odds of anyone getting hurt is small.

However, the more stuff that falls down, the worse those odds get.

&#185 – Here in the US, we use Fahrenheit. 800&#176 C is about 1,500&#176 F.

For perspective, aluminum melts at 1218&#176 F. Most other ‘substantial’ metals have significantly higher melt points.

What Costs A Half Billion And Orbits Mercury?

I just read an article about the NASA space probe, currently approaching Mercury.

Hey, I’m with you. Other than knowing it’s a planet, I’m pretty stumped about Mercury.

From Wikipedia: Mercury (pronounced /ˈmɝkjʊəri/) is the innermost and smallest planet in the solar system, orbiting the Sun once every 88 days. It ranges in brightness from about −2.0 to 5.5 in apparent magnitude, but is not easily seen as its greatest angular separation from the Sun (greatest elongation) is only 28.3

Trouble On The Shuttle

Tonight, AP reports:

A close-up laser inspection by Endeavour’s astronauts Sunday revealed that a 3 1/2-inch-long gouge penetrates all the way through the thermal shielding on the shuttle’s belly, and had NASA urgently calculating whether risky spacewalk repairs are needed.

A chunk of insulating foam smacked the shuttle at liftoff last week in an unbelievably unlucky ricochet off the fuel tank and carved out the gouge.

This is a big deal. The area where this gouge is located heats to over 2,000&#176 on reentry. The thermal tiles are the only thing that keeps the shuttle from frying on its way back to Earth!

I, for one, have lost my taste for the danger, without equal reward, the shuttle brings.

Whether this becomes a big deal in the media or not… it’s a big deal to the folks on Endeavour. Their lives are in peril.

An Inconvenient Goof

The lead voice on concern for global climate change is the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. GISS is part of NASA, though it’s located at Columbia University. They are the one who provide much of the context that’s turned global temperature data into an instrument of hysteria.

Recently, some of GISS’s work has been reexamined. Steve McIntyre of ClimateAudit.org seems to be leading the charge here. McIntyre found 1998 was not the hottest year on record in the United States, as had been claimed. It’s now replaced (though barely) by 1934.

After GISS acknowledged their errors and changed their numbers, the new data show 5 of the 10 hottest years on record in the U.S. came before World War II!

The numbers aren’t radically different, but it’s going to be very tough to spin them the same way they were spun before.

There’s a pretty good summary of what went on here, on Daily Tech.

About The Shuttle

I’ve beaten this dead horse a dozen times… but in case you’re a new reader, the Space Shuttle scares me. I don’t think we (currently) need to risk people’s lives to explore space. On top of that, much of the mission of the Space Shuttle and International Space Station is worthless.

Yesterday, NASA revealed a little problem with some thermal insulation.

A NASA spokesman said the gap appears to be the result of an unusual fold in the blanket.

“We’ve landed safely with damage (in the same area) that’s similar or worse,” Kyle Herring said. “I don’t think concern is the right word; there’s no urgency with the situation.”

There’s no doubt, this story is being played down in Houston. NASA placed the news halfway through the last of seven paragraphs in today’s press release:

The robotic arm cameras took a closer look at an area of insulation blanket on the port orbital maneuvering system pod that pulled away from adjacent thermal tiles. Engineers are analyzing the imagery. Olivas took additional photographs of the area this morning.

NASA seems assured. The insulation shouldn’t be a problem. This has happened before.

That, of course, is what was said by NASA when a ‘small’ piece of insulation broke off and hit the shuttle during Columbia’s launch. The very same thing had happened before.

Columbia disintegrated as it plunged into the Earth’s atmosphere in preparation for landing. Seven astronauts were killed and the space program put on hold.

I’m not saying NASA’s characterization is wrong. However, they probably know less than they’re letting on.

This insulation protects a surface that ‘only’ warms to around 1,000&#186 Fahrenheit – much less heat than Columbia’s ruptured skin faced. Is it critical to the aerodynamics of the shuttle as it hurtles back toward Earth? Only NASA knows… or, by later today, only NASA will have an educated guess.

With all their detailed checks and rechecks, how the hell could this happen?

The shuttle is extremely complex and inherently dangerous. The more times we fly the fleet, the more problems we’ll face. The shuttle fleet has gotten old. Atlantis (flying now) was delivered in 1985.

It’s been 46 years since Americans first sent a man to space. It’s time the government stepped away. Space exploration demands the kind of creative thinking and agility NASA can no longer provide.

This is not the kind of business government is suited to run.

Wally Schirra

With the passing of Wally Schirra, there are only two of NASA’s original astronauts left. If you watch TV and they call him Walter in the obituary, you can bet the person saying it isn’t old enough to remember.

Wally Schirra trained to go to space before anyone knew if it could be safely done. And after he went once he did it again and again.

When I first heard of his death, instead of flashing back to Mercury, Gemini or Apollo, I remembered Actifed. Wally Schirra was the first astronaut to ‘shill’ for a product – appearing in commercials for that cold relief medicine.

Of course, that’s preserved on youtube. What isn’t?

Schirra was a “Right Stuff” kinda’ guy, cool enough to fall asleep in the van on the way to the launch pad! I’m not sure if NASA even looks for that kind of astronaut anymore?

Interestingly, it was a surprise Schirra got after landing that is used as proof that Gus Grissom didn’t ‘blow’ his Mercury capsule’s hatch, allowing it to sink. Grissom was accused of panicking while waiting to get out – not a good reputation for a spaceman. It’s an ugly story that’s haunted Grissom’s legacy even after his tragic death in the Apollo 1 accident.

Upon slashdown, Schirra’s Mercury capsule was hauled up on the deck of the U.S.S. Kearsarge. When he blew open the hatch, the recoil from the switch was enough to leave a nasty bruise. Grissom had no bruise. Proof positive the hatch malfunctioned!

The Shuttle And Hail

A few folks emailed or commented to tell me my guess about the Shuttle, after yesterday’s hailstorm, was correct. Here’s what Space.com said:

To The Moon

There’s a big buzz today over NASA’s announcement yesterday that they plan to send men back to the moon – in essence establishing a colony with a permanent presence.

I’ve railed against the shuttle program and manned space flight in general, yet my initial reaction to this isn’t negative.

Certainly, I’m skeptical. Long ago NASA lost ‘the right stuff’ they had when we sent Apollo to the Moon. Our shuttle program is a foolish embarrassment, with little upside. Our greatest scientific breakthroughs have come from unmanned missions.

And, as my former producer at Inside Space, Dave Brody, said – NASA’s budget for everything else has pretty much been cut to the bone. There’s not much else they’re funded to do. They probably only have enough money to study, not build, a moon program.

Here’s one reason for skepticism, from NASA’s “Why the Moon?” page.

Six lunar exploration themes evolved from the recent Global Exploration Strategy discussions. NASA engaged the global space community to develop the themes by asking the question, “Why should we return to the Moon?”

If you think a governmental bureaucracy is inefficient, hold onto your hats for a multi-government bureaucracy!

Use the International Space Station as an example. While we play nice, attempting to build the station, Russia sells tourist flights! My sense is, in the spirit of cooperation or to hide the terrible partnership we forged, we’re subsidizing them.

I’ve looked through the objectives reached by the Global Exploration Strategy discussions. Couldn’t most of these be done better without people?

A notable exception is, “Understand the impact of extreme isolation on individual psychological health and group dynamics.” That one goal might be scary enough to keep people here on Earth.

Not every NASA proposal makes it off the drawing board. This is a big ticket item, and I’m unsure if Congress is willing to make the monetary commitment necessary.

Like I said, I’m not dead set against it, just skeptical.

Blogger’s note: The rendering at the top is from NASA. Here’s a larger version. I’m astounded they posted it, because it’s flawed in a way NASA should have spotted immediately.

On the Moon, with no atmosphere, shadows are pure black. Same thing in space. There are illuminated areas and there is total darkness. There is no mid ground.

Our ‘grayed’ shadows on Earth are caused by atmospheric scattering. There’s no lunar atmosphere, hence no scattering on the Moon.

Crash In Kentucky

I woke up this morning to the news of a Comair regional jet crash in Lexington, Kentucky. The circumstances were unusual, to say the least, as it looks like the plane never got airborne, or barely lifted. Weather conditions seem not to be a factor.

Now there is word (and this is unconfirmed as far as I can tell) the plane took off on the wrong runway!

I’ve attached the Blue Grass Airport layout. The small picture on the left is clickable for a larger image. It’s not hard to see the relative difference in length between those two strips of asphalt.

How could this happen? The tower should have had a clear sight line once the plane moved beyond the terminal. If I’m reading correctly, the top of the tower is 118 feet above the runway, meaning the controller was about 100 feet above.

And yet, it’s happened before. This is from FlightAware:

n 1993, the pilot of an air carrier filed a report with the NASA ASRS (aviation safety reporting system) after nearly departing from runway 26 when instructed to depart from runway 22 at Lexington. The report reads: “Aircraft was cleared for immediate takeoff (traffic was inside the marker) on runway 22 at KLEX. We taxied onto the runway and told tower we needed a moment to check our departure routing with our weather radar (storms were in the area, raining at the airport). We realized our heading was not correct for our assigned runway and at that moment, tower called us to cancel the takeoff clearance because we were lined up on runway 26. We taxied clear and then held short of runway 22 for landing traffic. We took off on runway 22 and proceeded without incident. Possible contributing factors were poor visibility and weather (rain. Confusing runway intersection and tower’s request for an immediate takeoff. Suggest possible warning page (similar to Houston Hobby) to clarify multiple runway ends.”

FlightAware’s airport information page for Houston Hobby (KHOU) shows the following disclaimer: “DUE TO COMPLEX RY CONFIGURATION; WHEN TAXIING TO THRS 12L & 12R AND 17 CHECK COMPASS HEADING BEFORE DEPARTING.”

Any time you hop aboard an airplane, you put your safety in someone else’s hands. You’d like to think everyone’s going by the book, taking no shortcuts which compromise safety.

I’ve never seen any business where that’s true 100% of the time.

ALH84001 – No Life After All

Back when I was hosting Inside Space, this was one of my most interesting shoots. I took a day off from work in Connecticut, hopped a Continental flight to Houston and headed to NASA in Clear Lake. Instead of the usual visit to see ‘manned spaceflight’ experts (NASA JSC’s expertise), we went to see Dr. David McKay in his well equipped laboratory.

There, hidden inside a ‘glove box’ was ALH84001 – a Martian meteorite found in the Allan Hills of Antarctica.

Because part of the ice sheet in the hills melts back every year, and the ground has been scraped clean over the millennial, any rock found must have come from outer space. Scientists just pick them up from the round, as if they were picking berries.

That afternoon in Houston, I got to stick my hand into the gloves and picked up a sample. It was pretty heady stuff, especially since Dr. McKay thought this meteorite contained telltale signs of life on Mars!

There’s an AP story today, and the conventional wisdom isn’t quite as positive as it was then.

After 10 years, few believe life on Mars

I feel bad for McKay, who was a genuinely nice guy and obviously dedicated scientist. But that’s not the reason I’m writing this.

On that day in Houston, I discovered when scientists talk about life on distant planets, they’re using a different definition of life than you or I might use. Even if McKay had been totally right about what was inside ALH84001, to me his discovery was more chemistry than life, and I said that to him there in Houston (not that my personal opinion was at all important to the greater scientific community).

When I think of life, I think of something more complex than what was thought to be in the meteorite. The idea was, ALH84001 had “fossils of ancient Martian microbes, or maybe traces of them, preserved in the cracks and pore spaces.”

From Wikipedia:

A microorganism or microbe is an organism that is microscopic (too small to be visible to the naked eye). Microorganisms are often described as single-celled, or unicellular organisms; however, some unicellular protists are visible to the naked eye, and some multicellular species are microscopic. The study of microorganisms is called microbiology.

I was very disappointed. When I heard life, I wanted something more substantial. Maybe some day, but not this day.

I was back home in Connecticut later that same evening.

Cool NASA Video

I am married, but I still enjoy looking at Jessica Alba. I am not a fan of the Space Shuttle, but I still enjoy looking at Shuttle video.

That seemed like a necessary analogy.

Anyway, NASA has some of the coolest video around, because they’ve got some exceedingly cool places to mount cameras. Here’s one I’d never seen before.

The video was taken from a camera mounted on one of the Solid Rocket Boosters – the Roman Candle part of the blastoff. Unlike the main engines, once you start these puppies up, they burn until expended. They cannot be shut down.

The full seven minutes of video can be a little tedious. So, let it download and then ‘scrub’ along the timeline. You’ll particularly enjoy SRB separation, as the Shuttle flies off and splashdown. The camera continued to work after the SRB had fallen into the Indian Ocean.

Way cool.

Amazing Landing Video

NASA has put together a movie of the Huygens probe’s landing on Titan! Holy cow! Even before I knew what I was looking at, I was hooked.

This movie, built with data collected during the European Space Agency’s Huygens probe on Jan. 14, 2005, shows the operation of the Descent Imager/Spectral Radiometer camera during its descent and after touchdown. The camera was funded by NASA.

Here’s NASA’s explanation, but you might just want to go to the video.

Blogger’s note: Since posting this, I have found the original (higher resolution – much clearer) animation on the Arizona State site.

Beware, at 83 mb this is a very large file. I thought it was worth it.

Global Warming Skeptic

The problem is, the more I understand, the less I am willing to buy into the Global Warming theories. That’s especially true of the global scale models used in the forecast, and the shortcuts they have to take.

I am a non-believe in the James Hansen Goddard ISS/NASA theories concerning global warming. They receive lots of press, and Hansen is an excellent advocate.

I interviewed him in his little office at Columbia University in Morningside Heights around 20 years ago. He made a good case, accompanied by graphs and charts and his famous colored dice.

I tried to explain forcings and chaos with colored dice. One die represented normal climate for 1951-1980, with equal chances for warm, average and cool seasons. The other die was

Challenger – 20 Years Ago Today

Today is the twentieth anniversary of the Challenger disaster, January 28, 1986. I still have that morning indelibly etched in my mind.

Helaine and I were living in Branford. Steffie wasn’t quite a twinkle in our eye. We went to sleep late and woke up later.

From bed, we turned on CNN. I’m not sure we had any anticipation of seeing a space shot that morning, but as the set came to life, the countdown was in its final two minutes. There was no way we were going to turn away.

We watched what happened live. James Oberg writing on MSNBC today said that was the exception not the rule. I knew something was wrong right away. No one had to tell me.

Twenty years ago, the bloom was already off NASA’s rose. Few people cared the shuttle was being launched. From time-to-time on previous launches, I’d run a few seconds of tape. But really, there’s was little news value. I was indulged because it fit so well with my TV personna.

On January 28, 1986 only CNN had a live reporter at the Cape&#185.

Christa McAuliffe, the New Hampshire school teacher was onboard to help NASA drum up some good publicity – the mother’s milk of funding. It doesn’t seem fair, considering the risk she faced.

Should NASA have known the shuttle was in danger that cold January morning? Was there a push to launch no matter what the circumstances? Truth is, it makes no difference.

Even if this explosion hadn’t happened then, there were other dangers hidden. Everything that brought Columbia down was already in place long before Challenger. There are other hidden perils we’ll see when the shuttle flies again… if it ever does.

Challenger came before my stint as host of Inside Space. I knew a little, not a lot about the space program when I started. The more I hung out where ‘spacemen’ hung out, the more I learned. This was my first step in deciding manned spaceflight was, and is, a hugely dangerous waste of money, resources and time.

Climbing onto a missile and having someone light the fuse is in and of itself dangerous. I have commented to astronauts on more than one occasion, it’s a job that can kill you when you’re just practicing. That’s what happened with Apollo One.

Today, everything that can be done on the shuttle can better be done robotically. There’s really no need to put people at danger. Anyway, even when the shuttle was flying, there wasn’t much science being performed.

NASA would like you to think otherwise, but what I’m saying is so. Look back at what was aboard Columbia – it’s embarrassing. I’ve heard talk of metallurgy and pharmaceuticals in space for decades – but it’s never happened in a way that would lead to the promised commercial applications.

Don’t get me wrong, the astronauts and NASA’s scientists are dedicated people. It didn’t take long to figure that out. I have met more brilliant minds at NASA facilities than anywhere else I’ve ever been. They are not the problem.

Flying people into space is a macho thing. It somehow seems more significant and worthy if a person is at the controls and not a machine. Until that mindset changes we will accomplish little and endanger many.

&#185 – I’m not sure who it was, though probably the late John Holliman, a very nice guy and space enthusiast.

Scrubbed

The space shuttle will not fly today:

From NASA: NASA has scrubbed the launch of Discovery because of a problem with a fuel tank sensor designed to protect the Shuttle’s engines by shutting them down if fuel runs low.

I haven’t heard yet how deep within the bowels this sensor is buried. I do know they’ll have to untank before they start.

Whenever they get this fixed, the daily launch window will continue to be very small – only about 10 minutes. The shuttle will be trying to catch up to the International Space Station and the time they’re in proper alignment is brief.