For Your Viewing Pleasure

As I've said before, and will probably say again, I've always been fascinated by the workings of our universe and the magnificence of space. I try to make it over to NASA's website to check out their Image of the Day Gallery once in a while, and I'm always amazed at how awesome the featured pictures are.

Today, I ran across this article at Wired Science. A Rice University researcher took 14 years of images of high-energy jets released from forming stars from the Hubble Space Telescope and pieced them together into a series of seamless animations. The result? I would call it staggering, eerie, beautiful. But you're welcome to come up with your own adjectives.

The video below includes a small selection of the animations. The rest can be found here.

In Space, No One Can Hear You Whimper

My current reading material is Richard Dawkins' latest book, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. It's the first Dawkins book that I've read, and although I'm very much enjoying it, I find him so overly pretentious and oftentimes contradicting himself throughout the book that I have to take frequent reading breaks to ensure that I am not assimilated by the Borg of smugness (Star Trek reference - kicking the nerd factor up another notch). It was during one of these reading breaks that I switched on the television yesterday evening and looked through our selection of on-demand Netflix items. While perusing through the various childrens' shows and lame reality TV programs, I happened upon a series titled When We Left Earth. I vaguely remember this show airing on Discovery Channel, but since I don't have cable, I hadn't seen any of the episodes. As one might expect, this is a television show dedicated to the history of NASA and of manned space flight. I only watched the first episode, which covered the Mercury Program and the initial seven American astronauts, but I can't wait to watch the rest of the series. In fact, all day I've been looking forward to plopping down in front of the TV with an adult beverage and watching another episode or two.

I bring this up not just because I'm plugging the show and believe that it should be required material for school children, but also because it drew my thoughts to one of my favorite books: The Right Stuff by Tom Wolfe. So not only am I shamelessly plugging a show about manned space flight, I'm also plugging a book about manned space flight. And I must say that if space flight fascinates you to any degree, you must pick up a copy of The Right Stuff and give it a read. But I should warn you that if your fascination with space flight is as intense as mine, you will have difficultly putting it down and other tasks will take second priority. So don't plan on being real productive once you get started with that one.

While watching When We Left Earth, I found myself thinking about a certain fact about myself, which is that while I am completely awe-stricken by manned space flight and still to this day floored by the idea that a man walked on the moon, I have very little interest in going into space. This concept was hammered home last night during the introductory sequence of the show, in which one of the images we see are an astronaut in orbit with the features of the Earth gliding by behind him.

And that's when I started feeling a little queasy.

Yes, I'm infatuated with manned space flight. But if you sent me into space, stuffed me into a suit and pushed me out the door, I'd grab onto the first thing thing I could get a hold of, with arms and legs, and hold tight until it was time to go back in. The thought of being out there, in the vastness of space, somewhat terrifies me. With that said, if someone from NASA came to me and said, "Cody, we'd like to send you to space. How about it?" I'm not sure that I'd be able to say no. I'd just probably spend the whole trip quaking with fear. And probably crying a little bit.

It's Not Rocket Science. Oh Wait...

I've been itching to discuss this topic for quite some time, and stumbled upon an article in ScienceNews that has given me a good reason to take a crack at it. The article summed up the results of the Augustine committee quite well, and, I may add, quite succinctly. This succinctness is good, because no one in their right mind wants to read a report written by a panel of rocket scientists about rockets for other rocket scientists. Actually, that's not totally true. The panel, headed by a former chair and CEO of Lockheed Martin (whose name is Norman Augustine; hence the name of the committee), was charged with reviewing NASA's future plans for manned space flight after the retirement of the space shuttle. Currently, NASA is betting on use of a rocket called Ares 1 to send manned capsules into low Earth orbit and to resupply the International Space Station. After what appears to have been an extremely thorough study by the Augustine committee, the group concluded, essentially, that even though NASA could develop and deploy Ares 1, that it didn't necessarily mean that they should. One of the express concerns that will arise, whether NASA goes ahead with the Ares 1 or not, is what will send our astronauts up in between the time that the shuttle retires, which is next year, and when the next program will be ready for use (the Ares 1 isn't slated to be ready for manned missions until 2017). To address this, the Augustine committee noted that it might be more beneficial to contract International Space Station resupply missions and other low Earth orbit missions to industry, allowing NASA to focus on manned missions to the Moon and Mars. To this possibility, the House Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Chairwoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) replied, “we are not prepared to have our astronauts’ access to space held hostage to purchases of seats from nonexistent commercial providers,” adding that the Ares 1 program appears to be on track and perfectly capable.

Giffords' statement is not only false, but very confusing.

Why? Because this is where SpaceX comes into the picture. SpaceX is a space exploration technology company founded and run by a remarkable man by the name of Elon Musk, who is also co-founder of PayPal and owner and chair of Tesla Motors. SpaceX has not only already developed a launch vehicle called the Falcon 9, but a transportation spacecraft called Dragon is also being developed and nearing completion, which will be capable of carrying cargo and crew into orbit and to the International Space Station. In addition, NASA has already contracted a minimum of 12 flights with SpaceX to resupply the International Space Station after retirement of the shuttle, with flights beginning in 2011. So this means that either Giffords was ill-informed when she made the aforementioned comment or just lying, because our astronauts' access to space is already being held hostage by commercial providers. But at a great value to the taxpayers. The Augustine committee concluded that the Ares 1 would not be capable of performing the tasks set forth without an extra $30 billion ontop of the current funding provided. On the other hand, SpaceX charges a flat rate for use of their Falcon 9 and Dragon systems, and for the 12 flights that have already been scheduled over the next 5 years, the total cost comes to approximately $1.6 billion. That's big savings. And not only is a continued NASA contract with SpaceX viable because of monetary concerns, but also because the Falcon 9 is extremely safe and reliable.

Are there any real reasons not to allow our astronauts' access to space be held hostage by commercial providers? Maybe. But I can't think of any. By the way, Falcon 9's inaugural flight from Cape Canaveral is scheduled to take place in just a few short months. I'll let you know how it goes.