Good Article: Understanding Rogue Planets

Posted on by onespaceman2000
Credit: Image by Dewald Van Rensburg from Pixabay.

Scientific American magazine has an interesting article on rogue planets, titled “How Many Rogue Planets Roam the Milky Way?” It discusses those lonely exoplanets that may or may not have started in a solar system, but nonetheless now drift in the darkness alone.

The article discusses a new paper from a team of astronomers at the Technion–Israel Institute of Technology that looked at the ejection of planets from planetary systems. Among the various findings noted, the team found that within the first billion years of a planetary system, on average as many as 3.5 planets are ejected , with most ejections happen within the first 100 million years. Moreover, systems with 10 or more planets eject more planets – as many as 70 percent of the system’s planets.

So that brings us back to our solar system. How many rogue planets did we spin off billions of years ago? We will never really know, but it gives one plenty to ponder when thinking about what awaits us out there should we venture beyond our present home system. Will we find old friends?

Note: An earlier article estimated there are seven rogue planets for every star in our galaxy, meaning the Milky Way may host trillions of rogue planets.

The Internet Satellite Race Continues, Almost

Posted on by onespaceman2000

Amazon hopes to challenge SpaceX’s Starlink system, but not just yet.

The launch planned for earlier this week place 27 internet satellites into orbit as part of Amazon’s Project Kuiper was scrubbed at the last minute. The United Launch Alliance (ULA) launch, scheduled for last Wednesday, was delayed due to bad weather.

If all goes according to plan, Project Kuiper will have about 1,600 satellites in orbit by the middle of next year. That would mean about 80 launches over that period, which seems somewhat unlikely given ongoing delays. In addition to ULA launches, Amazon is booking launches with Arianespace, Blue Origin, and SpaceX. When the project is complete, about 3,200 Kuiper internet satellites will be in orbit.

The Kuiper satellites will compete head-to-head with SpaceX’s Starlink (with its goal of 42,000 satellites) and China’s SpaceSail (with its goal of 15,000 satellites).

A new launch date for the first launch of the Kuiper internet satellites has not been announced yet.

Update: I forgot to mention another competitor – Eutelsat’s Oneweb in the European Union, which already has about 650 Internet satellites in Low Earth Orbit.

Second Update: This story, “Telecommunications Satellites and Space Exploration,” has a nice summary about how we arrived at the current moment with our satellite technology as well as what the future may hold.

Planetary Society Decries NASA Budget Cuts

Posted on by onespaceman2000
Image (Credit): Artist’s rendering of the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, which is one of the programs that NASA may need to cut as a result of proposed budget cuts. (Institute of Space and Aeronautical Science)

Earlier today, the Planetary Society issued a press release condemning recently announced proposed science cuts at NASA. This is the same week that the Senate heard from the nominee for NASA Administrator, Jared Isaacman, who stated in his written testimony:

I am an advocate for science. During these missions to space, my crew & I performed approximately 50 science and research experiments. I have also publicly supported the Chandra x-Ray Observatory and offered to fund a mission to extend the life and capabilities of the Hubble space telescope.

In its press release, the Planetary Society pulled no punches:

Days ago, the Administration’s nominee to lead NASA called for a “new golden age of science and discovery” at the agency. The proposed budget from within the White House — which cuts NASA science by 47% — would plunge NASA into a dark age instead.

If enacted, this budget would force the premature termination of dozens of active, productive spacecraft. These spacecraft are unique assets: their instrumentation and capabilities cannot be replaced without billions of dollars of new taxpayer investment. No commercial or private space companies can fill this gap.

This budget would halt the development of nearly every future science project at NASA, wasting billions of dollars of taxpayer funds already spent on these projects, abandoning international and commercial partners, and surrendering U.S. leadership in space science to other nations.

This budget would eviscerate space science research, withering the nation’s STEM talent pipeline by removing opportunities to train future scientists and engineers.

The Planetary Society condemns this proposal for NASA and for NASA science. We urge Congress to swiftly reject this proposal and restore funding for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate. We remain committed to joining with all stakeholders to protect and promote U.S. leadership in the scientific exploration of space.

It is time to write to Congress about these cuts. The Planetary Society provided a helpful page to do this.

It is also a good time to get a full time Administrator to fight for the agency if Mr. Isaacman’s comments can be believed.

Pic of the Week: Swan Song for Stars

Posted on by onespaceman2000
Image (Credit): A planetary nebula named Kohoutek 4-55. (ESA/Hubble & NASA, K. Noll)

This image is from the ESA/Hubble Picture of the Week website. It shows a colorful planetary nebula called Kohoutek 4-55, which is about 4600 light-years away.

The ESA/Hubble website defines what you are seeing in this way:

A planetary nebula, a glowing shell of material thrown off by a star. A small central region of greenish clouds is encircled by a glowing, jagged ring, like a hole torn in fabric. A band of silvery-blue clouds outside this is again encircled by a larger, fainter yellow ring of gas. Puffy, smoky clouds of orange and red gas billow out from there into a large oval nebula, fading into the dark background of space.

Today’s NASA Nominee Hearing

Posted on by onespaceman2000

It appears Mr. Isaacman will become the next NASA Administrator based on his careful answering of questions at his nomination hearing, but there was some weakness in his support for a Moon mission in both his prepared testimony as well as his answers to later questions.

In his prepared statement, Mr. Isaacman’s emphasis was Mars with reluctant support for something happening on the Moon:

As the President stated we will prioritize sending American astronauts to Mars. Along the way, we will inevitably have the capabilities to return to the Moon and determine the scientific, economic, and national security benefits of maintaining a presence on the lunar surface.

I read that as him saying a return to the Moon is an option.

Chairman Cruz was far more adamant about a Moon mission in his opening statement, saying:

The Artemis missions and the entire Moon-to-Mars program, which have enjoyed consistent bipartisan support, serve as the stepping stone to landing American astronauts on Mars. In fact, this stepping stone approach is the law as enacted by Congress. We must stay the course. An extreme shift in priorities at this stage would almost certainly mean a Red Moon—ceding ground to China for generations to come. I am hard pressed to think of a more catastrophic mistake we could make in space than saying to Communist China, ‘The moon is yours. America will not lead.’

In the question and answer period, Senator Cruz asked about the return to the Moon and received this weak response from Mr. Isaacman:

I don’t think we have to make any tough trades here, Senator. I think if we can concentrate our resources at the world’s greatest space agency, we don’t have to make a binary decision of moon versus Mars or moon has to come first versus Mars.

So Chairman Cruz continued:

If China beats us to the moon, what consequences might America face?

Mr. Isaacman replied:

We certainly cannot lose…If we do not lead the way and we’re following, we may be following forever, the consequence of which could be extraordinary.

That response sounds a little better, though it may upset Mr. Musk who has a preference for Mars, particularly a Mars mission that has federal funds going to his company.

It appears Mr. Isaacman has forgotten that the Moon is a stepping stone to Mars and not a speed bump. NASA is almost ready for a nearby Moon mission that can be accomplished in weeks, but a Mars mission that will take years is not even close to ready, no matter what Mr. Musk says.

Republicans and Democrats need to hold Mr. Isaacman’s feet to the fire to ensure the Artemis program is fully funded and continues before any designs are set for a Mars mission.