Space Dinosaurs

A new study by Ronald Breslow from the Journal of the American Chemical Society, yes, we have one of those, has speculated on the nature of life elsewhere in the cosmos. They specifically question whether dinosaurs could have become the dominant, intelligent form of life on other planets.

I'm glad to see scientists catching up to what 80's kids have known for over two decades.

Molten Dinos

It's hypothesized that the asteroid impact that nuked the dinosaurs was powerful enough to fling chunks of Earth into orbit. Has anyone done any work on attempting to find chunks of terrestrial rock on the moon to confirm this? Just wondering.

Take my Planet, Please.

The great debate about Pluto has, amazingly, remained far hotter than its humble subject ever since it was demoted from full planet status. So, basically, we've had a two year argument about semantics where very intelligent people made fun of other very intelligent people. After which they got blasted at the local pub while arguing how many angels fit on the head of a pin and who had the biggest hands.

I make fun, I know. Now, it must be known that a good definition is a good thing. It would be nice to know what planets, exactly, are. Unfortunately, when you are attempting to define things on a spectrum, as opposed to distinct characteristics, things get squiffy, as we can plainly see.

I was initially opposed to the demotion, and in a sense I still am. Considering the world's astronomers were unable to really define a planet, I saw no reason to eliminate one of the nine we were all taught. I still see little reason for the demotion since a succinct, formal definition of a planet doesn't seem very important to me.

I think it's pretty easy to simply call them planetary bodies and then create arbitrary categories within the spectrum. Say, large bodies are more than five times earth's diameter, etc. The categories themselves are unimportant. I also have a problem with the only aspect of the new definition that is mentioned, namely that a planet is a body large enough to generate a gravity field that squeezes the material into a spherical shape. I have a problem with that because it is physically possible for a planet to be a cube. It's unlikely, but there's nothing specifically preventing that from occurring. So what happens if we discover an object that is the size of earth but more cubic than spherical? It's not a planet?

I like my own definition of a planet. If it is directly orbiting a star and is big enough where we can walk on it without floating off into a very lonely and depressing death, it's a planetary body. If we float off into to space, it's not.


The Great (and Sometimes Serious) Debate About Pluto (LiveScience.com)

The Great Diaphragm in the Sky

A great deal of attention has been paid, recently, to the concept of a space "elevator." It's really only the newest idea in a long line of ideas on how to get into space on the cheap. Well, I guess "newest" isn't the right word since it's been around for some time. I guess the right way to describe it is as the most recent idea to become trendy.

Past ideas have included such winners as a giant sling shot, a magnetic lift, a magnetic sling shot, and the ever popular big-ass space shuttle cannon. The lift has really gained traction recently thanks to the emergence of carbon nanotubes, which promise new super materials. The main problem facing the space elevator is out of what we make the cable. When you have a cable that's thousands of miles long, the weight of the cable itself is enough to snap the cable. Ultra-light, ultra-strong materials must be invented before we could achieve the dream.

Well, along with carbon nanotubes, we now have meta-materials. These are atoms of known materials arranged in such a way as to give the final product entirely new properties, as though they were a new kind of material. These two new toys have given futurists and arm-chair dreamers (such as yours truly) the ability to say that the problem will be solved because LOOK AT THESE NEW MATERIALS! We'll undoubtedly get there with these!

Well I think that approach is stupid. In fact, I don't think we need the new wonder-materials. With materials we have now, materials directly on the horizon, and, oh yeah, a butt-load of money, we could develop a space elevator today. First, many of the big problems with the cable's strength can be eliminated if we start the cable at high altitude. The higher up we go, the weaker the gravitational force, the less cable, and the shorter the distance.

The focal point of my plan is rather absurd and dismissed by most, but I'm confident that it's sound. My idea involves balloons. Giant balloons, of course. The biggest balloons ever created. Imagine giant blimps, hundreds of times larger than the Hindenburg, supporting large, aerial, shipping platforms. We could have a ground based elevator attached to one at low altitude. This platform could theoretically be anchored to the ground. The second platform would be connected by yet another (relatively) short elevator to the first platform. By now, altitudes would high enough to be above the weather and storms would only ever be a consideration for the first platform. Finally, a series of higher platforms up into the mesosphere, with a final elevator into the thermosphere, where a station of some sort is waiting.

The second plan, and one I consider more cost-effective, is one where the first station is in the mesosphere. In this scenario, ground-launched airships deliver cargo to the station which is then lifted to two or three more platforms until delivery into space. Obviously, at such high altitudes, debris falling to earth will become a problem, but here is where I get to invoke the deus ex machina of future wonder-materials. The balloon skins will be made from indestructible carbon nanotube skin.

Oh, and to explain my title, I imagine that the large platforms would look similar to giant, inflated diaphragms in the sky. Or perhaps red blood cells.

What we have here... is a failure to comunicate.

To celebrate my return to communication, I'll post about a loss of the same; namely, the Mars Global Surveyor (MGS). It recently celebrated its tenth year in space... from a mission designed for three.

It's kind of like the Enterprise, a five year mission that just keeps friggin' going. It also stands as a testament to what can happen when stuff goes right. The public eye has grown so jaded and selective as on to what it focuses that great successes that should be heralded barely manage a peep. Yet total failures earn as much coverage as Britney's most recent antics.

The fact that MGS lasted SEVEN years longer than expected, and if they fix the problem longer still, shows the grand dividends paid out from a prudent investment into science and discovery. There is no cost-benefit analysis that can effectively determine what can come from such investment.

I'm sure there were a number of insipid bureaucrats who whined about the cost of a mission set only to last three years, and yet here we are, ten years later. The dedication of those who love knowledge continually push projects beyond any expectations in this age of disinterest. I know that, in the future, it is they who will be honored, not those who complain about budgets, pinch pennies, and talk of no return on such massive investment.

An investment into the advancement of the human race returns not money, but instead something of such immense worth that it stands wholly beyond measure. I would rather know a single thing than have a million dollars in my pocket.

NASA struggles to contact lost Mars probe (Via NewScientist.com)