The year in space

steve smyth — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 00:33:02 GMT

same to you, Alan...thanx...I'd be wackier than I am without CosmicLog...

The year in space

Howard Davenport, Iowa — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 01:26:25 GMT

If, just "If," the universe started with the big bang, I remember someone talking about the rubber band effect - that the universe collapses back to the big bang effect and everything starts over again. "If" this were true would we ever begin to know when anything started?

The year in space

Brett, HCMC, VN — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 02:04:27 GMT

I think less elitists will dominate space, more robots and lots more automatic machines. Maybe some success on cosmic travel but not full blown space travel. As always - even better footage, shots and astronomy that will maintain the interest in space that will get continued budgets for millions of experts (new and old university graduates in the science/space field) But I think your column will be the star! Merry Xmas!

The year in space

Jaycubed — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 02:43:26 GMT

Fairies...We don't need no stinking Fairies.

How about the Hummingbird Galaxy.

Or the Butterfly Galaxy.

The year in space

Jaycubed — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 03:01:24 GMT

" 'If' this were true would we ever begin to know when anything started?
Howard Davenport, Iowa"

"If" the Big Crunch were to occur in a universe your question about "know(ing) when anything started" would be irrelevant to any being that existed in that universe as they could not pass through the boundaries. Any resident will have been baked, irradiated & crushed into an extremely tiny area along with every bit of matter & energy that existed in that universe.

The only universe relevant is the one you reside in. Copious evidence shows it started roughly 14 Billion years ago.

The year in space

Dennis McClain-Furmanski, Dalworthington Gardens, Texas — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 04:14:19 GMT

A possible development for 2008: If Mars gets pasted with the asteroid headed its way, and we get to see the incident and aftermath, then perhaps we'll see some more intense interest detection of possible Earth-bashers, and maybe even some funding for deflection schemes. Hopefully we can use a Tunguska event on another planet to get this going, rather than waiting for one to happen here.

And, being an astronomically based event and so appropriate here, a joyous solstice season to one and all.

The year in space

Bill Hensley, Houston, TX — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 04:40:39 GMT

Alan, you accidentally wrote that COTS is a $500 billion program. I wish! Of course it's really "only" $500 million.

The year in space

Hadrian Wall, York, England — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 04:59:41 GMT

Nice article. Very informative. I hope this continues to get hits despite being posted on a Friday evening before a holiday.

The year in space

Des Emery, St. Thomas, ON, Canada — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 05:52:56 GMT

Howard Davenport wonders about the origins of the Universe. Logically, without using some of the far-out theories but only the commonly accepted everyday variety, we are now in an 'expanding' phase of the universe, but could anticipate a future 'contracting' phase if gravity continues to act as it has in the past.

'Dark matter' and/or 'dark energy' - nature unknown at present, but presumed real by some observations - is required to balance the equation by which the universe will show sufficient mass to eventually start contracting again.

When the mass of the entire universe is condensed into one Black Hole, gravity will continue to implode the structure, while the opposing force will grow relatively within it until that force overcomes gravity and blows everything back into existence, the 'expanding universe' again.

If that happens, then the universe itself is eternal. Think of it as God's heartbeat.

The year in space

Charles Lurio, Brookline MA — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 07:04:14 GMT

Alan,
About this statement,
"..{COTS]...which is NASA's $500 billion Plan B for resupplying the space station."
1. Its 'million' not 'billion'!
2. Even by Griffin's measure, it's supposed to be 'plan A,' with the Orion as Plan 'B', since you simply can't afford to keep the station going given the cost of an Orion flights.
Of course, many of us out here believe that Orion shouldn't have _any_ place in supplying the station, but Griffin keeps saying that the NASA vehicle is his backup in case private industry is not able to build a satisfactory station support vehicle.
Which is just as absurd as saying circa 1958 that the government had to have a national 'hi-fi' audio product manufacturing program just in case the private sector wasn't up to it ... Of course, if COTS is defunded enough (and it may be already, with all due respect to SpaceX) Griffin's assertion might turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The year in space

Alan Boyle — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 08:02:34 GMT

Many thanks to Bill and Charles for pointing out my bonehead "billion" error. This isn't the first time I've grossly overstated the COTS figure. Maybe it is just a case of wishful thinking on my part, or maybe I just have those Old Space billions on my mind. ;-)

The year in space

J M Walker — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 14:16:48 GMT

I wonder if the reason we can't detect dark matter is it doesn't behave in a way we can detect as yet. Suppose dark matter were to exceed the speed of light as its usual speed. Detection would be difficult.

Also, while the big bang may have created the universe, it has also been shown the universe is not slowing down, but accelerating. Which means in the far distant future, the universe will be a cold, dead place. Sad to think.

The year in space

Frank Glover Rochester, NY — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:50:45 GMT

"that the universe collapses back to the big bang effect and everything starts over again"

The idea of a 'cyclic' Universe isn't new, but not only does there not seem to be enough matter in the Universe to slow its expansion to a stop, and eventual collapse (which we've known for some time), but the rate of expansion seems to be *increasing* instead of gradually slowing, but never to a complete halt (which we've learned fairly recently, and 'dark energy' is the term curently given to whatever unknown force or effect appears to be causing this)

The year in space

Lisa Ellis, San Diego, CA — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:53:28 GMT

I'll throw in a quick addition. The world's first consumer products made from ingredients flown in space were introduced this year. Microgravity Enterprises introduced Antimatter and Space2O to the average consumer. I hear it's outselling Red Bull in NM. As a disclaimer - I'm hooked on Antimatter so I'm biased.

The year in space

Steven F. Durst, Bayard, WV — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:29:02 GMT

I love looking at all the beautiful images that are now available to anyone with a computer. They are awe inspiring and stunning to observe.
However I have a question for anyone who may offer me a good explanation to an obsevational puzzle. If the farther we are looking out into space, the farther we are looking backward in time? Why are all the gallaxies and images the same? There seems to be no progression of development to the universe. Almost as if everything came into being ,as is, at the same instant.

The year in space

Dave L., Fort Madison, Iowa — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 01:49:45 GMT

There do seem to be a lot more quasars at longer look back times. And our understanding of the big bang is that it did not happen in some particular place in space, but "everywhere at once".

The year in space

Rich Austin, TX — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 06:17:59 GMT

"Why are all the gallaxies and images the same? There seems to be no progression of development to the universe. Almost as if everything came into being ,as is, at the same instant. "

that's probably because it takes thousands of years of existence to notice any changes in development.. a couple thousands years to a galaxy is probably the equivalent of 5 minutes to you and me..

The year in space

Ben Winter, Ardmore, OK — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 17:34:45 GMT

In a world flooded with information, both factual and false, this is a great place to keep abreast of the latest--and the reactive pulse of viewers.
My thanks,
Ben

The year in space

Mark Wakely, Lombard, IL — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 17:38:20 GMT

Don't forget that the Rocket Racing League is still determined to hold its first race in 2008, perhaps as early as March. Although the first team to join the league- Leading Edge Rocket Racing- dropped out in May, there are still four teams determined to get rocket-powered planes into the air, with more than a dozen in the planning stages. While some observers find the whole idea a waste of time, money and rocket fuel, others see it as a way to create enthusiasm for rocket technology and eventually, rocket-powered passenger planes that will transport people and cargo to any point on the planet in a matter of hours. Like the early days of prop-driven airplane races, supporters hope that the RRL will capture the public’s imagination and lead to bigger and better things for rocket aviation.

The year in space

Frank Glover Rochester, NY — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 20:18:46 GMT

"A possible development for 2008: If Mars gets pasted with the asteroid headed its way, and we get to see the incident and aftermath, then perhaps we'll see some more intense interest detection of possible Earth-bashers, and maybe even some funding for deflection schemes. Hopefully we can use a Tunguska event on another planet to get this going, rather than waiting for one to happen here."

One would hope. But on the other hand, who remembers the fragmented comet that we watched hit Jupiter?

However, in that case, Galileo had not yet arrived on station. There are several Mars orbiters operating now, that could give us clear images of the area, before and after.

If, of course, the impact actually does occur...

The year in space

Des Emery, St. Thomas, ON, Canada — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 05:00:02 GMT

Frank Glover mentions that the "expansion" of the universe appears to be accelerating instead of slowing down. But we are observing that effect in the most far away galaxies, when they could be expected to be still in the early stages of the expansion, 8 to 14 billion years ago; we have no idea what those galaxies actually look like now, nor how fast they are moving at the present time.

Alan has posted composite pictures of stellar events which science thinks may show "dark energy/matter." The conclusion has not been declared as absolute as yet. But there is something there and enough of it would eventually enable gravity to overcome the expansion force and begin to pull everything back together again.

As a BTW, we can "see" both the extreme 'east' side and the extreme 'west' side stars in a distant spiral galaxy at the same time. Simultaneous supernovas occurring there, would be seen here as simultaneous, but to each other and their respective neighbours they would seem separated by many years.

The year in space

Ferris Valyn, Ann Arbor, Mi — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:49:35 GMT

Mark Wakely - An excellent point, however, there is 1 correction - its now 6 teams, not 4, that RRL has.

The year in space

Jason D. A. — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 07:30:34 GMT

I wanted to point out that the current ISS commander, Peggy Whitson, is the first female commander of the station - another first in 2007.

The year in space

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 11:54:35 GMT

Glover, Emery, etal.,
Recent observations, that led to the accelerating expansion conclusion, are based on the fact that they found very distant galaxies (hence, way back in time) are not moving
away (due to expansion then expansion) as fast as nearer galaxies (more recent in time); hence, a speed up (acceleration, speed increase) has occurred as time
has advanced since the start of the universe, The Hubble parameter (used to be called the Hubble Constant) is smaller way back in time (more distant galaxies) than earlier in time (nearer galaxies), hence, showing an increase in speed (acceleration) as time advances since "big bang".
For nearer galaxies, a graph of speed vs. distance is closely a straight line (constant slope, what Hubble found and why word "constant" used). As distance to galaxies increases, far beyond what Hubble was able to observe, the early-on straight line begins to have a smaller slope (bends in downward direction), hence, the need to change from "Hubble Constant" to "Hubble parameter". Hubble's "constant" did not stay "constant" (got smaller)as looked further out into space, back in time (things were expanding slower way back then).
Another point that is essential to prevent many wrong ideas is that the SPACE between galaxies is expanding and causing the appearing motion (speed), NOT the galaxies having higher intrinsic speeds (we are not looking at a situation where a "velocity filter" (faster moving stuff out distances slower like in an explosion). This "space expansion" can exceed the speed of light and, therefore, we will never be able to see any galaxies beyond the theoretically observable (up to where recession speed matches maximum speed of light), expanding, universe (this was a possibility, however, if the universe ever entered a "big crunch" phase), because, beyond the theoretically observable universe, this expansion speed exceeds the speed of light (information transmssion), thereby, preventing such distant light orinformation from ever getting to us with the speed of light being smaller than the speed of expansion, "way out there". Anyone "way out there" won't ever observe us (our galaxy) either because we will be in a faster-than-speed-of-light-expansion region from them, just as they are for us. Based on these facts, some conjecture that the universe (including beyond the observable universe) may be infinite, but SCIENCE does not (can not) go there (prove it)because SCIENCE requires OBSERVATION and observation is not possible. Soooooo, here is where dreamers, believers, people of faith, science fiction writers, etc. can have all the fun they please without science ever being able to legitimately interfere.
Happy NEW YEAR to ALL. Remember, there is plenty in our observable universe to keep us having plenty of scientific fun (probably as long as humans exist) and no science can legitimately stop us from having ideas about what is beyond our observable (scientific?) universe.

The year in space

Wayne, Alamogordo, NM — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 16:04:49 GMT

I believe the term "Space Race" is obsolete. A race implies there's going to be a winner. A winner of what? We won the race to the moon, China is going there because they believe there's profit to be made from it. We're probably the only country who's not looking at space with a profit margin in mind. Sure, we have some private companies that are focusing on long-term profit from their ventures, but what are our governmental long-term objectives? For the past 50 years, the taxpayers of this country have put a lot of money and faith in our space program and what have we gotten in return? A few large companies have made billions, their top executives have made millions, they've kept a lot of people employed, some terrific new technologies has been developed, and some new scientific revelations have been realized. Still, what have we got to show for it "space" wise - an aging space shuttle fleet, the ISS (very little return on investment so far), and no clear plan on where we're going with our space program. I say we focus on the moon and mine it for anything that can turn a profit. Then we should focus on Mars and the Asteroid Belt for mining. If we focus on the profit margin, space exploration will take place and will advance, and not at the expense of the taxpayers. The NASA has shown it's ineptness and inability to do the job. We need a new vision. Let's hope our government pulls is head out of you know where and starts focusing on what's important, putting the country back in the black again instead of always being in the red. We were founded on capitalism and we need to get back to our roots. I'm backing a new space slogan, "Profit from Space". What say yea?

The year in space

Eddie French, Middlewich, Cheshire, UK — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 23:28:17 GMT

Profit from space is the only way that we will get back into the business of getting off this rock before the phrase 'eggs in one basket' comes right back to bite us. Hopefully, 2007 WD5 will impact with a good showing at the tail end of January and heads will go up once more, and stay up this time.
The funding arguments are pure farce! Consider the costs incurred in war to the measly $16B for NASA. Factor in the money paid back into the economy by NASA employees and all sub-contractor awards and their salaries too, and the cost is pitiful to date.
More discussion about this on Newsvine where I have initiated a group called New Horizons. All are welcome to join the debate.