The particles they are collecting are not necessarily from a comet. That phase comes later in the mission. The aim of this mission phase is to collect interstellar dust particles. Check out the BBC article referenced.
Interstellar, in this case, means from materials that were not involved in the formation of this solar system, i.e. either from another solar system or from whatever background materials accreted to form the various stellar systems in this part of the galaxy.
Regarding the "border of our solar system", that is probably more a matter of opinion that anything else. Personally I tend to think of it as being the limit of the sun's gravitational well. In other words, if an object is placed at a position with no net momentum (I know, a classical concept) it will tend to accelerate towards our sun if it's within our solar system. In reality, definitions of borders in space is largely futile.
Not true. Interstellar grains are defined based on their past history, and not their present location. Just because they happen to be in interplanetary space does not mean they are not interstellar, i.e. from outside of our solar system. -k
I couldn't agree more. This hits the nail exactly on the head. But without public interest in science and planetary exploration, we don't get funding. Or more positively, how do we get the public interested in science and planetary exploration, like in the 60's and 70's when everyone was interested?
Interest has waned since the 70s, but it is still there - look at the popularity of documentary series like "The Planets". However, the way that space exploration is presented in the UK is terrible for UK science. Most of the public are still under the misconception that, since the collapse of the Soviety Union, all space science in done by NASA. It's true that most space exploration missions are run by NASA, but the science teams are generally international and, increasingly, the likes of Europe, Japan, etc. are launching inter-planetary missions. Scientists have to take some of the blame though - UK scientists are not nearly as good at self-promotion as US ones, partially due to the lack of an incredible publicity organisation like NASA, but mostly due to the fact that UK scientists do not trust the media, and most are not trained to deal with them. Over the next few years though, I think you'll see UK planetary scientists getting more organised. For the first time ever (since 1997) we have a national forum for planetary science issues. We also have our first UK lander, and involvement in various ESA missions (Cassini-Huygens, Mars Express, Bepi Columbo, etc.).
As far as the technology development goes - it is mostly these people who select planetary missions. How can we expect a good science return is the mission proposals are mostly from instrument designers who want to keep their jobs?
This is a misconception, I think. The design of most planetary missions (and instruments on planetary missions) is driven by a science team (who want data) in association with an engineering team (who want to develop technology). Usually, the engineering team is approached by the science team with the question: can we do this? In addition, the engineering teams are often university based (e.g. much of Beagle 2 has been built at Leicester University, UK), and these teams tend to be very progressive in their designs. I can't speak for people in industry.
Then, I don't know if your opinion is typical from the British. I've always been stunned at the lack of space ambition they've always had. They basically don't have a space program at all.
No lack of ambition here - UK scientists are involved in most instruments on most ESA and NASA space exploration missions. As far as launching our own missions is concerned, however, there has always been an awareness that a sustained non-commercial space programme can only be achieved by spending lots of money, and the UK economy wasn't strong enough to contribute significantly on its own. ESA has made it possible, by allowing nations to banding together. UK-led missions like Beagle 2 are unlikely to be common. It just so happened that, in this case, it was both achievable on a national scale and, as a bonus, it has raised awareness of space exploration in the UK.
Agreed, the shuttle does have some advantages, particularly as far as retreival of satellites is concerned. However, it has been significantly more expensive that planned and, as such, other areas of spacecraft development have suffered in NASA, allowing ESA, Russia and Japan to undercut them in most areas in terms of value for money, especially in the case of heavy-lifting. As a result I think that ESA are unlikely to start using shuttles in the near future.
-Karl
Beagle 2 is a UK lander. The UK government (through PPARC) funds the instrument with additional cash coming from private donations/sponsorship. It was built in the UK by a team from the UK with some contributions from overseas.
Mars Express is an ESA mission consisting of a Mars orbiter.
Beagle 2 will piggy-back on Mars Express, and use it as a data relay so, yes, it would be impossible without ESA. But, for that matter, the mission also uses NASA's deep space network for receiving data so it would also be impossible (at present) without NASA> However, the lander itself is from the UK.
I don't think it's so much about russian superiority, as about the fact the it's simply much cheaper to launch from Russia. The russian economy is in such dire straits that they can undercut anyone.
I should also point out that the Cassini-Huygens mission to the Saturnian system is a good example of NASA/ESA collaboration. NASA provided the probe (Cassini) and ESA provided the Titan lander (Huygens).
Now they keep it up for some sort of pride and prestige.
... and also because the principal of funding science without obvious immediate returns is still alive and well. The great thing about bureaucratic funding of science is that money can actually go to where it is needed for scientific advance, rather than to where there is obvious and immediate financial reward. It's important to note that governments do not come up with these missions. The missions are designed by the scientists, and whether or not a mission is funded is more a matter of those scientists convincing those bodies that fund their science to send enough money their way. Under normal circumstances a government will hardly intervene.
...the shuttle (Hermes) was scrapped.
The shuttle was scrapped because it was found to be more expensive than traditional rocket launches, as NASA has discovered to its cost.:(
... the future in space belongs more to commercial interests than these bureaucratic moneyeating government space agencies.
Maybe, eventually, commercial interests will dominate. However, for the time being there is no profit in planetary exploration. Also, I don't think that it's necessarily justified that government space agencies would be any more moneyeating than corporate ones. No shareholders or overpaid directors for a start. Okay, a government space agency might be less likely to cut corners by getting inferior components, in which case they would probably end up spending more, but I think that this is a good thing.
I don't see NASA and ESA as competing really. The different missions are returning quite different data, and both groups are releasing all of their data to the international science community after the usual embargo (typically about a year). Combined missions could also be advantageous, of course, but so is some competition, at least in the eyes of the administrators. It's worth noting that there are Europeans on the NASA mission teams and vice-versa. Also, European and American planetary scientists collaborate on a great many science projects. I really don't see it as a problem.
All along some Europeans - particularly the French, although there is much to admire about them themselves - have felt a profound jellously about America and in his case, the American Space program
Sorry to start this reply on a sour note, but that is a largely incorrect statement. Jealousy of America as a whole is not a something I encounter much in the UK, or the rest of Europe. Distrust and incredulity, whether justified or not, are at least as common. There is a fair amount of respect for NASA and its science, as the US space programme has done some wonderful things. In particular, the willingness of the US government to release all the data from NASA's planetary missions to the international science community is much appreciated. I hope the ESA will maintain a similar policy.
On to the space programme though. The truth is that a united European science-driven space programme would have been impossible in the past. This was not so much because of a lack of will or experience in the science community, in fact, many European scientists have had important and even leading roles in NASA missions. Not was it a lack of money, as the European economy is similar is size to the United States and also tends to have slightly higher taxes. It was mostly due to a lack of a cohesive structure allowing nations to pool their resources. Only over the past decade or so have we seen this degree of unity, and it looks set to continue into the future.
You wonder why the Europeans should bother to have a science-drive space exploration programme? Well, space exploration slowed down considerably after the 1970s, what with the end of lunar exploration and the shuttle tragedy. As a result, planetary science went into a decline and many scientists decided that it was no longer possible to rely on data collected by NASA. Although this has changed somewhat over recent years, NASA still has problems. The ISS is severely underfunded and is not living anywhere near to its potential. The Bush administration has no interest in any space science that is unprofitable, with the possible exception of the goal to get an American on Mars. Also, several missions have been lost due to the smaller-faster-cheaper-"far more likely to crash" approach in the 1990s, although it has to be said that some, particularly Mars Global Surveyor and Mars Pathfinder, have been extremely successful.
So, we're left with two options: (1) To let NASA continue along its current course, with the possibility that space exploration will decline once again, or (2) To start planetary exploration independently, giving more data to the international science community and providing NASA with some competition. The latter of these points is highly important, as the United States, as with any free-market economy, seems to thrive on competition. It wouldn't surprise me if the current European interest in Mars causes NASA to re-double its efforts to get a human on another world, and good luck to them!
Of course, you might not think that space exploration is at all important. If that is a case, we've got a completely different argument on our hands.
-Karl
Dr Karl Mitchell Planetary Science Research Group, Environmental Science Dept., Lancaster University, UK
You know that if they do find life they'll blame it on "earthly contamination" no matter how clean it was so these clean room conditions don't do anything but waste time and money. Why not just let it sit in the corner of a nuclear waste site for a couple months and have that nuke off any germs.
That doesn't always work. Microorganisms can thrive in high radiation environments, as has been shown by studies at Sellafield.
Who's they? This is the first UK mission to Mars and we stick to metric in science. The main worry is the launch system, as the last European Mars mission to be launched by Russia didn't make it outside of our atmosphere.:(
Personally I think that the Earth is the most interesting body in the solar system, but anything with volcanoes is a close contender.:) One of my colleagues in particular would agree happily with your comment about Europa, though. He's nuts for the icy Galilean satellites.
Re:you're right, for the wrong reasons
on
Back to the Moon?
·
· Score: 1
3) the moon AFAIK is mainly made of Si, O, N and some C (not in that order) what is really missing is Hydrogen, which you can provide by bringing small asteroids/comets back to near-earth orbit. (landing them on the moon in one piece is much harder...)
Agreed on the most part, but that's roughly true of the Earth as well. Mined elements are normally small in quantities. However, we know from orbital analyses that the lunar surface also consists of vast quantities of Iron, Aluminium and Titanium in oxidised, all of which could be extremely useful in the production of spacecraft if we can refine them.
Unless you consider the UK to be part of Europe. We can't decide which to use. At least we keep imperial units completely out of science and engineering.
Yes, but then again, NASA almost definitely did so as well with Viking, etc., so you can't really blame it on them being amateurs. Well, unless, that is, you think of NASA as amateurs.
There have been a lot of questions about how we know that SNC (or Martian) meteorites come from Mars. This used to be a bit of a "hot topic" in planetary science, but over the last few years an international consensus has arisen supporting the hypothesis that these meteorites come from Mars.
The clearest explanation I can find for this can be found at http://www.nhm.ac.uk/mineralogy/grady/mars.htm- the author, Monica Grady, is one fo the world's leading authorities in this field.
In short, the ratios of the three stable isotopes of oxygen (16, 17 and 18) are characteristic for any given planet. The SNC meteorites contain small quantities of atmospheric gases within isolated pockets. Since the oxygen isotopic composition of these gases have been shown to be different from that of the Earth, they cannot have come from here, leaving Mars as the a viable proposition for the meteorites' origin. This is supported by measurements of the isotopic composition of Mars' atmosphere by the viking landers.
I hope that answers some of your questions.
Regards,
-Karl
Dr Karl Mitchell Planetary Science Research Group Environmental Science Dept. Lancaster University UK
"Suggest" is not synonymous with "is" or "state" (unless, perhaps, you happen to work at NASA HQ?). To me the original abstract sounds fine, but the interpretation of this by NASA HQ is simply incorrect. I'm astounded at how they could have let such a press release out. I wonder if the authors of the abstract got to read it first? If I was them I'd be quite upset at how badly I'd been misrepresented.
Slashdot Mirror
Interstellar, in this case, means from materials that were not involved in the formation of this solar system, i.e. either from another solar system or from whatever background materials accreted to form the various stellar systems in this part of the galaxy.
Regarding the "border of our solar system", that is probably more a matter of opinion that anything else. Personally I tend to think of it as being the limit of the sun's gravitational well. In other words, if an object is placed at a position with no net momentum (I know, a classical concept) it will tend to accelerate towards our sun if it's within our solar system. In reality, definitions of borders in space is largely futile.
-Karl
Not true. Interstellar grains are defined based on their past history, and not their present location. Just because they happen to be in interplanetary space does not mean they are not interstellar, i.e. from outside of our solar system. -k
Interest has waned since the 70s, but it is still there - look at the popularity of documentary series like "The Planets". However, the way that space exploration is presented in the UK is terrible for UK science. Most of the public are still under the misconception that, since the collapse of the Soviety Union, all space science in done by NASA. It's true that most space exploration missions are run by NASA, but the science teams are generally international and, increasingly, the likes of Europe, Japan, etc. are launching inter-planetary missions. Scientists have to take some of the blame though - UK scientists are not nearly as good at self-promotion as US ones, partially due to the lack of an incredible publicity organisation like NASA, but mostly due to the fact that UK scientists do not trust the media, and most are not trained to deal with them. Over the next few years though, I think you'll see UK planetary scientists getting more organised. For the first time ever (since 1997) we have a national forum for planetary science issues. We also have our first UK lander, and involvement in various ESA missions (Cassini-Huygens, Mars Express, Bepi Columbo, etc.).
As far as the technology development goes - it is mostly these people who select planetary missions. How can we expect a good science return is the mission proposals are mostly from instrument designers who want to keep their jobs?
This is a misconception, I think. The design of most planetary missions (and instruments on planetary missions) is driven by a science team (who want data) in association with an engineering team (who want to develop technology). Usually, the engineering team is approached by the science team with the question: can we do this? In addition, the engineering teams are often university based (e.g. much of Beagle 2 has been built at Leicester University, UK), and these teams tend to be very progressive in their designs. I can't speak for people in industry.
-Karl
Cheers fantomas! Your past posts have been appreciated as well... -k
No lack of ambition here - UK scientists are involved in most instruments on most ESA and NASA space exploration missions. As far as launching our own missions is concerned, however, there has always been an awareness that a sustained non-commercial space programme can only be achieved by spending lots of money, and the UK economy wasn't strong enough to contribute significantly on its own. ESA has made it possible, by allowing nations to banding together. UK-led missions like Beagle 2 are unlikely to be common. It just so happened that, in this case, it was both achievable on a national scale and, as a bonus, it has raised awareness of space exploration in the UK.
-Karl
The biggest problem facing British planetary science is a lack of funding for the actual science, rather than technology development. :(
-Karl
I might admit to a slight bias there. :)
-Karl
Well said! No need to add any more.
Wish I could moderate upwards!
-Karl
Agreed, the shuttle does have some advantages, particularly as far as retreival of satellites is concerned. However, it has been significantly more expensive that planned and, as such, other areas of spacecraft development have suffered in NASA, allowing ESA, Russia and Japan to undercut them in most areas in terms of value for money, especially in the case of heavy-lifting. As a result I think that ESA are unlikely to start using shuttles in the near future.
-Karl
Beagle 2 is a UK lander. The UK government (through PPARC) funds the instrument with additional cash coming from private donations/sponsorship. It was built in the UK by a team from the UK with some contributions from overseas.
Mars Express is an ESA mission consisting of a Mars orbiter.
Beagle 2 will piggy-back on Mars Express, and use it as a data relay so, yes, it would be impossible without ESA. But, for that matter, the mission also uses NASA's deep space network for receiving data so it would also be impossible (at present) without NASA> However, the lander itself is from the UK.
-Karl
I don't think it's so much about russian superiority, as about the fact the it's simply much cheaper to launch from Russia. The russian economy is in such dire straits that they can undercut anyone.
-k
I should also point out that the Cassini-Huygens mission to the Saturnian system is a good example of NASA/ESA collaboration. NASA provided the probe (Cassini) and ESA provided the Titan lander (Huygens).
-Karl
The shuttle was scrapped because it was found to be more expensive than traditional rocket launches, as NASA has discovered to its cost. :(
Maybe, eventually, commercial interests will dominate. However, for the time being there is no profit in planetary exploration. Also, I don't think that it's necessarily justified that government space agencies would be any more moneyeating than corporate ones. No shareholders or overpaid directors for a start. Okay, a government space agency might be less likely to cut corners by getting inferior components, in which case they would probably end up spending more, but I think that this is a good thing.
-Karl
I don't see NASA and ESA as competing really. The different missions are returning quite different data, and both groups are releasing all of their data to the international science community after the usual embargo (typically about a year). Combined missions could also be advantageous, of course, but so is some competition, at least in the eyes of the administrators. It's worth noting that there are Europeans on the NASA mission teams and vice-versa. Also, European and American planetary scientists collaborate on a great many science projects. I really don't see it as a problem.
-Karl
Sorry to start this reply on a sour note, but that is a largely incorrect statement. Jealousy of America as a whole is not a something I encounter much in the UK, or the rest of Europe. Distrust and incredulity, whether justified or not, are at least as common. There is a fair amount of respect for NASA and its science, as the US space programme has done some wonderful things. In particular, the willingness of the US government to release all the data from NASA's planetary missions to the international science community is much appreciated. I hope the ESA will maintain a similar policy.
On to the space programme though. The truth is that a united European science-driven space programme would have been impossible in the past. This was not so much because of a lack of will or experience in the science community, in fact, many European scientists have had important and even leading roles in NASA missions. Not was it a lack of money, as the European economy is similar is size to the United States and also tends to have slightly higher taxes. It was mostly due to a lack of a cohesive structure allowing nations to pool their resources. Only over the past decade or so have we seen this degree of unity, and it looks set to continue into the future.
You wonder why the Europeans should bother to have a science-drive space exploration programme? Well, space exploration slowed down considerably after the 1970s, what with the end of lunar exploration and the shuttle tragedy. As a result, planetary science went into a decline and many scientists decided that it was no longer possible to rely on data collected by NASA. Although this has changed somewhat over recent years, NASA still has problems. The ISS is severely underfunded and is not living anywhere near to its potential. The Bush administration has no interest in any space science that is unprofitable, with the possible exception of the goal to get an American on Mars. Also, several missions have been lost due to the smaller-faster-cheaper-"far more likely to crash" approach in the 1990s, although it has to be said that some, particularly Mars Global Surveyor and Mars Pathfinder, have been extremely successful.
So, we're left with two options: (1) To let NASA continue along its current course, with the possibility that space exploration will decline once again, or (2) To start planetary exploration independently, giving more data to the international science community and providing NASA with some competition. The latter of these points is highly important, as the United States, as with any free-market economy, seems to thrive on competition. It wouldn't surprise me if the current European interest in Mars causes NASA to re-double its efforts to get a human on another world, and good luck to them!
Of course, you might not think that space exploration is at all important. If that is a case, we've got a completely different argument on our hands.
-Karl
Dr Karl Mitchell
Planetary Science Research Group,
Environmental Science Dept.,
Lancaster University, UK
That doesn't always work. Microorganisms can thrive in high radiation environments, as has been shown by studies at Sellafield.
-Karl
I just wanted to put in a quick advert for the Beagle 2 website at http://www.beagle2.com/. Many of your questions can be answered there.
-Karl
Dr Karl Mitchell
Planetary Science Research Group
Environmental Science Dept.
Lancaster University, UK
Who's they? This is the first UK mission to Mars and we stick to metric in science. The main worry is the launch system, as the last European Mars mission to be launched by Russia didn't make it outside of our atmosphere. :(
Personally I think that the Earth is the most interesting body in the solar system, but anything with volcanoes is a close contender. :) One of my colleagues in particular would agree happily with your comment about Europa, though. He's nuts for the icy Galilean satellites.
Agreed on the most part, but that's roughly true of the Earth as well. Mined elements are normally small in quantities. However, we know from orbital analyses that the lunar surface also consists of vast quantities of Iron, Aluminium and Titanium in oxidised, all of which could be extremely useful in the production of spacecraft if we can refine them.
-Karl
Unless you consider the UK to be part of Europe. We can't decide which to use. At least we keep imperial units completely out of science and engineering.
-Karl
Yes, but then again, NASA almost definitely did so as well with Viking, etc., so you can't really blame it on them being amateurs. Well, unless, that is, you think of NASA as amateurs.
-Karl
Please see my reply below (#4008377). Cheers, -Karl
There have been a lot of questions about how we know that SNC (or Martian) meteorites come from Mars. This used to be a bit of a "hot topic" in planetary science, but over the last few years an international consensus has arisen supporting the hypothesis that these meteorites come from Mars.
The clearest explanation I can find for this can be found at http://www.nhm.ac.uk/mineralogy/grady/mars.htm- the author, Monica Grady, is one fo the world's leading authorities in this field.
In short, the ratios of the three stable isotopes of oxygen (16, 17 and 18) are characteristic for any given planet. The SNC meteorites contain small quantities of atmospheric gases within isolated pockets. Since the oxygen isotopic composition of these gases have been shown to be different from that of the Earth, they cannot have come from here, leaving Mars as the a viable proposition for the meteorites' origin. This is supported by measurements of the isotopic composition of Mars' atmosphere by the viking landers.
I hope that answers some of your questions.
Regards,
-Karl
Dr Karl Mitchell
Planetary Science Research Group
Environmental Science Dept.
Lancaster University
UK
"Suggest" is not synonymous with "is" or "state" (unless, perhaps, you happen to work at NASA HQ?). To me the original abstract sounds fine, but the interpretation of this by NASA HQ is simply incorrect. I'm astounded at how they could have let such a press release out. I wonder if the authors of the abstract got to read it first? If I was them I'd be quite upset at how badly I'd been misrepresented.