The group was saddened to hear today about the passing of Stephen Hawking. The following link is to an obituary written by Roger Penrose giving a summary of his life and contributions to science.
The group was saddened to hear today about the passing of Stephen Hawking. The following link is to an obituary written by Roger Penrose giving a summary of his life and contributions to science.
……………. So, whose Space is it anyway?
The question is being asked with increasing frequency and in many different contexts. The complexity of some of the answers has become the fuel of a rapidly expanding new legal business – Space Law. Several universities in the USA offer the subject as a specialist module to students of Law and just recently, the University of Sunderland was the first European university to offer the subject as a part of its graduate law course. Clearly, there’s money to be made from the interpretation of the confusion.
As early as the 1950s, it became obvious that some rules and regulations would be necessary to oversee the potential complexities of Space. Both the USA and Russia jointly approached the United Nations with outline legislation. The motivation for such a move was probably that each feared that the other may have the ability to take complete control of Space. Just in case, both wanted to agree some limitations.
The Americans drew an analogy for their proposals on the ‘Law of the High Seas’ whereby the vessels would be registered at a port of origin and subject to those laws, but Space, like the oceans, would be International and free.
The Russians on the other hand wanted the legislation to use airspace as the model. They put forward the argument that whatever was above your territory was a part of your sovereign state, right out to infinity. They were more sensitive than the West to spy missions flying over their territory and from very early on, they clearly saw this as potential misuse of Space.
Unfortunately, the launch of Sputnik-1, the world’s first Earth orbiter did not help the Russian argument. Sputnik crossed the USA 3 times as it orbited Earth and proved the futility of trying to control such activity by legislation. A satellite in Earth orbit will have a much greater capacity to view the territories beneath than any aircraft flying in a strictly controlled ‘air-space’ corridor.
So, in much of the early Space legislation discussions the American model prevailed. Eventually, this led to the 1967 ‘Outer Space Treaty’ which has been ratified by 107 signatories, including all of the major Space-faring nations such as Russia, the USA, China and the European countries. The treaty is overseen by the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs and sets out the important principles which include – ‘Space should be considered the province of all mankind; outer Space is free for exploration and use by all States; the Moon and other celestial bodies are to be used purely for peaceful purposes; and weapons will not be placed in orbit or in Space’.
The ‘Outer Space Treaty’ was augmented in 1968 by the addition of the ‘Space Rescue Agreement’ which requires the signatories to return home any astronauts who might land in their country, to help any astronaut in distress and to return any space objects to their owner. There are 97 ratified signatories to this treaty. Whereas most nations agree with the principles embodied in the Rescue Agreement some point out there is no reference in the Agreement as to who bears the cost of any ‘Rescue’.
In 1969, with the ink still drying on the intention that man’s endeavours in Space are for the benefit of all humanity, NASA could not resist planting an American flag on the Moon. Not that any claim to the real estate was intended, but they did have to make a point in the context of the space race.
In 1972, the third major plank of Space legislation came into being and this was on the subject of liability. This states that the launching party is “absolutely liable to pay compensation for damage caused by its space objects on the surface of the Earth or to aircraft”. There are 89 ratified signatories to the ‘Space Liability Convention’.
In 1974, a fourth extension of the ‘Outer Space Treaty’ was brought into being which required the UN to be notified ‘as soon as is feasible’ when an object had been launched, the launcher, its planned orbit and its ‘general’ function. This treaty is referred to as the ‘Registration Convention’. Note that the ‘specific’ function of the launched object is not required as this would certainly not be agreed to by several of the signatories. The military are still a major adopter of satellite technology. To date, there are 63 ratified signatories.
The fifth and final raft of Space legislation with the UN is the 1979 ‘Moon Treaty’, which gives jurisdiction of all celestial bodies (including the orbits around such bodies) over to the international community. To date, there 17 ratified signatories to the ‘Moon Treaty’; none of which are leading Space-farers.
The objection to the ‘Moon Treaty by the Space-faring nations is held to be the requirement that extracted resources (and the technology used to that end) must be shared with other nations. Perhaps following the ‘Law of the High Seas’ in creating Space Law has found its limit. The analogous law of the sea as enshrined in ‘ United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea’ is believed to impede the development of extracting resources from the ocean bed.
At the end of 1976, a challenge to the Outer Space Treaty was made under the auspices of the Bogota Declaration. Eight Nations traversed by the equator felt that their ‘natural resources’ had been usurped by the Outer Space Treaty which established that ‘outer space’ and all celestial bodies were not subject to national control. All eight nations, Columbia, Ecuador, Congo, Indonesia, Kenya, Uganda and Zaire attempted to assert their rights of ownership to the geosynchronous orbit around the equator. With the signatories of the Outer Space Treaty vastly outnumbering those of the Bogota Declaration, nothing to date has arisen from the challenge. However, it remains a current topic of discussion in the burgeoning corridors of Space Law.
So, there is a basic framework of international legal agreements which can be applied to Space exploration and exploitation. One could argue that the UN is typically given many responsibilities on the international arena, but little in the way of authority. What can the UN actually do in the case of non-compliance?
The laws rarely get tested, but in 1978, the crash of the nuclear-powered Soviet satellite Kosmos 954 in Canadian territory led to the only claim filed under the Space Liability Convention. The satellite contained about 50 Kg of enriched Uranium and several of its fission products which had been generated during its operation, like plutonium, caesium and strontium. The debris field covered 15,000 Sq. miles and in many ways landing in a remote part of Canada was fortuitous. It was not a controlled landing and it could have been much worse. The Canadians claimed the $6 million cost of the clean-up under the ‘Space Liability Convention’. The Russians contested the claim but eventually settled for half the amount and a legal precedent had been set.
American assistance was keenly offered to the Canadians for the clean-up, although their motives may not have been purely philanthropic. There was interest in the Russian technology aboard Kosmos 954 and it is alleged that any surviving hardware was not duly ‘returned to its owner’, as specified under the ‘Space Rescue Agreement’. One piece in particular was a signal generator for the satellite’s radar which was driven by a Klystron unit – essentially, a vacuum tube based set. One for the Smithsonian.
In 2008, when a similar unscheduled de-orbiting fate was visited upon the American spy satellite USA193, the American military ensured that there was no chance of anyone getting a look at their technology. As the satellite re-entered Earth’s atmosphere over the Pacific, the US Navy engaged it with an SM-3 missile, reducing it to swarf. One assumes that legally, they were entitled so to do – or at least no one was about to argue.
The real problem with the current set-up is that the legal framework is geared toward nations. On behalf of its members, the United Nations can execute programs and even police them on a nation to nation basis. There is no obvious way in which their standard modus operandi deals with commercial organisations.
No one envisaged the commercialisation of Space to the extent that is now on the horizon. If a private American company, registered in Luxembourg launches a satellite for an Asian customer from a French island with the intention of recovering minerals from a celestial body, who gives approval for the mission? who owns the minerals? who covers any liability? And, and, and many more questions. If anything goes wrong, then the UN has no interaction at a commercial level and can only hold a nation responsible – but which one?
At a superficial level, the current Space Laws would suggest that the launching nation gives mission approval, any minerals retrieved belong to everyone and if anything goes wrong, each of the nations involved has full responsibility with regard to any compensation. On such a basis, it is unlikely that there will be a sudden gold rush.
Space Law is mostly centred upon Space exploration and discovery – a sharing of knowledge and understanding for the benefit of mankind. The exploitation of Space by individual companies is not well served by current legislation.
For example, there is as yet no official definition of ‘Outer Space’ in any of the United Nations treaties. The Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI), an international standards body for aeronautics has defined ‘Space’ based on the Kármán line at an altitude of 100 Km. This after the Hungaro-American engineer Kármán who calculated that at this height there was little atmosphere to contribute to lift for a vessel. This has been accepted by NASA, but curiously it is contested by the US Air Force, which advocates a more arbitrary 50 miles (80Km).
Why is this relatively small height difference important? Well, if you violate a nation’s defined airspace, then you stand a very good chance of being shot down – depending on the demeanour of the aggrieved. However, if you overfly the same territory in ‘Space’, then you are free to do so – provided of course that your purpose is for the ‘benefit of all mankind’.
The future of aviation will further blur the boundaries of Space. If Elon Musk1 is correct, then virtually all destinations on Earth will be reachable within a 1 hr flight. This will be achieved by launching a plane into low Earth orbit, accelerating to around 27,000Km/hr and re-entering Earth’s atmosphere in a matter of minutes before proceeding to the destination. If each flight will be subject to the ‘Outer Space Treaty’ and its extensions, then there may be some frustration ahead for Mr. Musk.
The second major area which was not perceived in the concept of the ‘Outer Space Treaty’ is the commercial exploitation of Space through retrieval of minerals and other valuable elements of Space. The United States in particular is keen to encourage private enterprise to take on these ventures.
In 2015, the US government made an attempt to update the law on space mining, producing a bill that allows companies to “possess, own, transport, use, and sell” extra-terrestrial resources without violating US law. The problem is that putting this into practice violates the Outer Space Treaty, which states that no nation has sovereignty over these resources.
In Europe, the canny burghers of Luxembourg have decided to make a play for a piece of the pie. The government of Luxembourg has passed a bill giving companies the rights to space resources they extract from asteroids or other celestial bodies. They have made available 200 Million Euros in grants for companies who want to become asteroid miners. (Of course, they can also provide an attractive tax package for any of the companies who register in Luxembourg).
Can sovereign states make such claims over Space resources? Only time and legal challenges will tell. Some changes to the current Space Treaties are an absolute necessity to ensure that Space does not become a free for all – like the Gold rushes of the past carried out in a lawless vacuum.
At present, the nation from where a launch is made basically has to underwrite the operation. Missions are currently insured in the commercial market at various stages through their progress. Most countries agree to cap the commercial insurance limit at around $60 million and the nation bears the difference. This encourages private enterprise and limits their liability – the cost to insure a $250 million communications satellite operating for 10 years is around $50 million. But if let’s say it failed and began to collide with other satellites then the cost could be several billions of dollars.
Clearly this is a huge risk that not many commercial operations are willing to undertake and therefore the liability cap and an underwriting by Governments will be key to how Space is developed. So, the role of a Nation in any future laws will still be important in the commercialisation of Space.
However, even when a legal framework is agreed, the next major issue will be how these laws will be policed. This will not be a trivial matter in Space.
1Elon Musk – vision of air travel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDEKjfnRhqQ
By Christine Ord
My husband David and I went to the US this August to experience our first total solar eclipse.
I am pleased to report that August 21st this year, the day of the total solar eclipse across the United States, dawned beautiful, hot and clear in Hendersonville, Tennessee. This is where David and I were booked into a hotel under the path of totality. In the days prior to the eclipse the weather reports were still reporting partially cloudy skies for the big day, so we were not certain as to whether we would be lucky and have a good view. The news reports were also advising that the roads were expected to be very busy as people got into their preferred locations for the eclipse. Based on these road forecasts, we decided to stay close to the hotel and not join one of the big events being advertised in nearby towns.
There was a lake and small park area just across the road from the hotel from where we decided to watch the eclipse, under a covered picnic area. Several people had set up telescopes and cameras with filters near the hotel. As the time approached for first contact (moon just beginning to cover the sun) a number of office workers came to the picnic area with lunch and drinks. They turned out to be the local council workers, plus the mayor who came out to watch the eclipse. They had such appropriate delicacies as ‘moon’pie, ’orbit’ gum, ‘milky way’ bars and ‘Sun’ gold drinks (as well as enormous sandwiches which didn’t have an event related name). We were invited to join them.
As the time drew near for the total eclipse, we had been watching the progress of the moon over the sun with the eclipse glasses over a period of about 1.5 hours. The weather held and we had a great clear view of the event for the 2 minutes 40 seconds of totality. Here are a few of our observations :-
The time of totality passed quickly and we clearly saw the diamond ring as the moon continued its journey and the sun gradually came back into view. It didn’t take long to get back to daylight and high temperatures, even though the sun was still partially covered for the next hour and a half.
We both thoroughly enjoyed the experience and were not disappointed. As with most observations of astronomical events, you are left wanting more. Perhaps next time a longer totality, a glimpse of bailey’s beads, a pair of binoculars to see some coronal detail ……
As we didn’t have a special filter for David’s camera he could only take pictures, of the Sun once it had been totally covered. He used a Canon EOS 80D camera. We have included a few that he took of the event below. Here are a few of the more unusual ones that other people took to take a look at.
This one was taken from a plane as the shadow of the moon fell on the ocean before making landfall.
The spaceweather website has a gallery of images taken around the world during the eclipse
Picture taken from a weather balloon showing the shadow of the moon across the earth.
This is NASA’s best collection, which includes some of the ISS passing in front of the Sun during the eclipse and some taken from the ISS itself.
Diamond ring effect as moon begins to move Fellow observers
The detection of exoplanets – that is, planets orbiting stars other than our Sun – has rarely been out of the news since the first successful detection back in 1992. A few months ago, headlines were full of items about the discovery of an exoplanet orbiting Proxima Centauri, possibly within that star’s “habitable zone” and so with consequences for life on a planet somewhere “near” to us.
I was fortunate to have studied a part-time course in Astronomy at University College London (UCL) over the last two years. One of the course’s modules was on exoplanets and included detailed descriptions of the different methods by which exoplanets are actually detected by astronomers. With one exception, those methods all require sophisticated systems which are way beyond the reach of even the most enthusiastic and well-heeled amateur. The exception is detection through the transit method.
The transit method measures the apparent brightness (or flux) of a star over a period of time, looking out for changes in that brightness. Regular small changes of a particular type and short duration may indicate the presence of a planet passing across the face of the star. Periodic measurement of the star’s brightness should result in a light-curve which shows a pronounced dip during the time of the planet’s transit.
More details on all this can be found easily with a quick Google search. NASA has a good website which includes a section on methods of exoplanet detection at https://exoplanets.nasa.gov.
My UCL course suggested to me that amateurs should be capable of detecting exoplanets using the transit method and I decided to have a go to see how easy or otherwise it might prove to do so.
Finding a previously undetected exoplanet is pretty much beyond an amateur. Even if we assume (as now seems likely) that most stars have orbiting planets, the transit method relies on the planet’s orbit passing at some point between us and the star. Because of all the possible orbits an exoplanet could have, the likelihood of that happening is about 1 in 100 for a large planet and about 1 in 200 for an Earth sized planet. So I am quite happy to try to detect planets that are already known to orbit stars and to be detectable by the transit method!
My online research came up with a short book written by Dennis Conti which is aimed at amateurs and explains the mechanics of exoplanet detection. It is free for download at http://astrodennis.com. I would recommend it to anyone interested. I think that anyone who is broadly competent at astrophotography should also have the ability to detect exoplanets.
The main question for me was what equipment was likely to be necessary for a successful detection. Some research suggested that a few amateurs have successfully detected exoplanets, but had almost invariably used large Schmidt-Cassegrain telescopes of upwards of 12 inches diameter, with 16 inches being normal. I prefer to use refractors. The largest refractor I own is a 6 inch f7 apochromat. I found little to suggest that exoplanets could be detected with such a small telescope. However, I decided to give it a go.
Here is what I think is needed:
I am very lucky to have a permanent small observatory near Benidoleig. Based on my experiences, I don’t think this is necessary, but it certainly helps.
Finding the target star, controlling the mount and acquiring images all needs software. For this I used Software Bisque’s The SkyX Professional. Other programmes will work equally well, I am sure.
What I found so helpful as to be close to essential (for me at least) was the additional use of a plate-solving programme. For example, if an image I have taken of a star field is loaded into The SkyX, the programme will compare the picture to its star database and when it finds a good match, will place and show that image at the right location in its planetarium programme. Other programmes do the same thing using online data resources.
Plate-solving of this kind is useful for several reasons: (i) finding the right star in the first place. The target stars are not the stars we all know and love and can point to in the sky. They are often unnamed or feature in an obscure catalogue and so can be quite hard to find in practice; (ii) pointing the telescope, once identified and shown in a planetarium programme, at the right star; and (iii) subsequently checking that data has indeed been acquired from the right star.
There are several databases of exoplanet hosting stars and the one I used (http://var2.astro.cz/ETD/) provides a 15 arc-minute square Deep Sky Survey (DSS) image of the target star and its immediate surrounds. I used The SkyX to plate-solve the DSS image so as to show me where in the sky the star is located. In fact The SkyX also then allows accurate movement of the telescope to the exact location of the DSS image. I was then also able to take a test exposure, plate-solve the resulting image and check that it coincided with the DSS image. These kinds of advances in relatively mainstream software now enable amateur astronomers to achieve far more than would have been possible only a few years ago.
Once the data has been acquired, the resulting images need to be calibrated and aligned. There are a number of programmes that will do this. I used CCDStack. See further later.
Finally, the target star’s brightness needs to be measured and the results plotted in a graph. Again, I am sure there are any number of available and suitable programmes. I had already used AstroImageJ during my studies at UCL. It is a popular and powerful photometry programme and is available as freeware at http://www.astro.louisville.edu/software/astroimagej/. It isn’t a particularly easy programme to use. I think it is designed primarily for professional scientists. However, following step by step instructions, after trial and plenty of errors over quite a few hours as I learned how the programme works, resulted in the output of a recognisable light curve.
My first attempt wasn’t too successful. I was in a hurry having arrived at my observatory only a couple of hours before the predicted exoplanet transit. As a result I made a mistake and set an exposure time for the camera that was too long and resulted in some of the camera’s pixels containing the target star image being saturated, something I didn’t discover until I examined the image data the next morning. The moment they are saturated, pixels are no longer linear and so do not react proportionately to an increase or decrease in signal. Indeed, I suspect they stop being linear some time before they saturate.
The following day I tried again on a different (and dimmer) target star. This time I was much more careful with exposure times and worried instead whether I had gathered sufficient signal to overcome background noise. As it turned out I had, though I suspect if I had increased exposure time slightly I might have had a cleaner light curve.
Here, broadly, are the steps I took:
The programme automatically assumes that the first star chosen (T1) is the target star and that the others (C2-6) are comparator stars. The idea is that the brightness of the target star (Wasp-52) is measured for each frame, as is that of each comparator star, which hopefully doesn’t have an orbiting planet affecting its brightness and isn’t a variable star, an orbiting binary or anything else that might cause signal fluctuations. That way, if the target and the comparator both vary at the same time in brightness by proportionate amounts, that variation can be ignored as resulting from external variations such as clouds passing across the target. If in any given image the target varies but the comparator does not, the programme registers the variation as it must have a source inherent to the target star. The literature does discuss the choice of comparator stars and checking beforehand that they aren’t variables or binaries. I just used a pin and assumed that if one of my five comparators wasn’t good, that would show in its data compared to the others and I could eliminate it. Not very scientific, but it seemed to work.
Once “Go” has been pressed, the programme analyses each image identifying variations and starts creating the light curve, dot by dot. It is a great experience to see the dots start appearing, and even better when they begin to head downwards in a curve indicating a successful exoplanet detection and then later head back upwards as the transit ends. Here is the curve I generated from my 330 images:
The top (horizontal) row of blue dots clearly shows the Wasp-52b exoplanet light curve. The two horizontal rows of magenta and orange dots underneath are the plots of two of the comparator stars. I actually used five comparators, but removed the other three from the measurement plot so it isn’t too cluttered. It can be seen from the vertical axis that there was an almost 3% dip in brightness of the target star (from 1.01 down to 0.98 on the relative flux scale) during the transit and that the transit lasted nearly two hours. All exactly as predicted! The radius of the host star is known from its spectral type and so the amount of the dip in the light curve allows calculation of the radius of the planet, which turns out to be about 1.3 x the radius of Jupiter. The period of the orbit is only a few days, so the orbit of Wasp-52b is clearly close to its star, making it a “hot Jupiter”, the easiest type of exoplanet to detect.
The quality of the curve isn’t bad, considering this was a first effort. The right hand side deteriorates in quality compared to the left hand side, but its trend is still very clear. The change in quality affects the target star and the comparators and I guess is due to the stars dropping in altitude during the imaging run and so becoming increasingly affected by atmosphere instability.
I proved to myself that a keen amateur with reasonably normal equipment and some CCD imaging experience can successfully detect an exoplanet from a back yard with a small telescope. It also turned out not to be that difficult, though admittedly I chose as easy a target as I could.
The sense of achievement as the planet’s light curve gradually appeared on my computer screen was immense. This felt like proper science!
The success is of course primarily attributable to the quality of equipment and software now available to amateurs at a reasonable cost and the immediate availability of help and information on the internet.
I am not sure what if anything I will do with that new found ability. In a few months time, I suppose I may have another go and pick a more difficult target. It seems that amateurs do have a role in exoplanet detection by providing further data in respect of planets already discovered where the professional community has moved on to other targets. But for the moment, I am happy to leave the fun to astronomers and their telescopes in Mauna Kea, La Silla or up in space.
Experimenting with a Star Analyser (200 lines/mm)
By Peter Gudegon
The Star Analyser looks like an ordinary 1.25″ glass filter, but is a diffraction grating that splits-up the light coming from a star into its various colours. Many stars show absorption lines in their spectra where they have certain colours missing, while some others may have bright spots on their spectra where they emit most of their light at particular wavelengths. Suddenly each of those otherwise bland normal stars start to reveal their own individual identity…. some people refer to it as looking at a star’s fingerprint.
The analyser can be used in a variety of ways:-
The cost of these analysers is around €130-155 (August 2016) and they come in two versions:- 1. A 100 lines/mm (this is the standard type usually recommended), B. A 200 lines/mm, intended more for work with CCD cameras, and has a lower profile to allow it to fit inside filter-wheels.
What makes these so good is that they use a “blazed” grating. A normal diffraction grating has most of the light passing straight through it, with a relative low percentage of light being directed into 1 of several orders of diffraction, creating a rather dim image. A “blazed” grating uses a method that increases the amount of light being directed to one particular order of diffraction, in some designs up to 70% of the incident light may appear in the preferred diffraction.
For my own use, I used a (large) normal camera lens in place of a telescope (Sigma 150-500mm zoom), then a slim EOS lens to T2 adapter, followed by a Filter-Drawer (in which sits the star analyser), in front of a QHY9 (monochrome) CCD camera.
Unlike a normal (and very expensive) spectroscope that passes the light through a very narrow slit, this relies on the star image being as small and stable as possible (ideally a stationary point source). Too high a magnification (with a telescope) amplifies any movement of the star due to the atmosphere, which greatly reduces the resolution of the end result.
Although a zoom lens might be frowned upon by most astronomers, on a mount that has to be erected/dismantled every night it provides a very neat, portable solution, and makes initial alignment of the mount very easy before zooming in to use the full diameter of the objective. The relative low magnification means the motorised drive easily allows exposures of 30 seconds without the need to set up an auto-guide, and to my surprise has already allowed me to record spectra from stars down to magnitude 10.
After a quick test on some of the stars in Lyra, what I really wanted to try this on are some Wolf-Rayet stars. These stars have very strong emission lines, but unfortunately they are quite rare, and in the Northern hemisphere the best known/easiest to observe are a group in Cygnus. However they are all quite faint, the brightest being magnitude 6.7 (ie. below naked-eye visibility).
Below is a highly enlarged part of a picture showing the star WR136 on the left and on the right its resulting spectra, in which you can clearly see some bright spots.
But to analyse the results you really need to turn the spectra image into a graph and calibrate it (which turns out to be much easier than it sounds). Using RSpec to do this created the following graph. Although determining the significance of each line is where it becomes interesting…..and involves a lot of “Googling”.
Next another couple Wolf-Rayet stars, this time WR135 and WR137 which are known as Carbon rich stars….The difference in their spectra from the above is immediately obvious. These type of WR stars are known for their strong C [III] & C[IV] lines at 5690-5820 Angstroms. But I was surprised that with this relatively simple set-up I could look at these two stars, about magnitude 8.5, and even record the differing amplitude of the C [III] line and that they are noticeably narrower for WR135, which distinguishes it as a spectral type WC8, compared to the spectral type WC7 of WR137.
…………….the debate on the subject of Cubesats is warming up
Three student-built CubeSats were launched into space On April 25th on Soyuz flight VS14 from Europe’s spaceport in Kourou, French Guiana. The CubeSats hitched a lift with the launch of the European Earth monitoring satellite Sentinel -1B. The launch is a part of ESA’s outreach program ‘Fly your Satellite’, set up to encourage education in space technology. They all successfully called home and are currently in low Earth orbit.
CubeSat is a term measuring a satellite’s approximate size and mass. A 1-unit cubeSat is a 10-centimeter cube weighing about 1 kilogram. Most launched so far are in the 1- to 3-unit size, but the industry is expanding so rapidly that these early trends may not endure.
Artist’s impression of a CubeSat in orbit
In the last decade, CubeSats have gone from curious toys to capable tools. Advances in technology have expanded their capabilities in areas as diverse as imaging the Earth, studying space weather and even military interest. They are attracting great interest from scientists and venture capitalists alike.
All CubeSats are in low Earth orbit, but NASA announced that it will send a pair of CubeSats on their first interplanetary mission with InSight, its next mission to Mars. The pair of tiny satellites will enter a 3,500 Km orbit of the red planet and provide a communication relay for the Insight orbiter. NASA sees this project as a test for CubeSat technology and with the traffic currently orbiting Mars, there will be no shortage of alternative communication paths, should the worst happen to the CubeSat.
CubeSats will provide a communication relay for the Mars Insight mission
To date, in excess of 450 CubeSats are known to have been launched, with many more waiting to hitch a ride on a host launcher. There are also probably quite a few which have never been fully documented.
Most CubeSats have no on-board propulsion. They are generally obliged to take such launch opportunities as are available to them. They are typically a ‘secondary’ payload and must accept whatever orbit is required for the rocket’s main customer.
Having to hitch a ride can mean accepting a launch to an orbit in which their spacecraft will remain for many decades, long after their operational lives of two years or so. Many do not include a de-orbiting strategy. And therein begins the problem.
Satellites and debris are monitored by the US Air Force Joint Space Operations Center (JSpOC) and CubeSats in their atomic form—10 centimeters on a side—are near the lower limit of what can easily be tracked. Even larger CubeSats still pose difficulties in obtaining precise positions, resulting in greater uncertainties.
JSpOC is the body which provides information to satellite operators to avoid collisions with debris and provides the data to ensure the safety of astronauts aboard the ISS. Several times, the ISS has had to be moved out of the path of debris and on two or three occasions, the astronauts have been ordered to take refuge in the Soyuz spacecraft ‘lifeboat’ for additional protection.
No wonder then that there are those in the industry who derisively refer to CubeSats as ‘debris Sats’. The more hardware there is in space, the greater the chance of collisions. To mitigate these risks, CubeSats are supposed to come down within 25 years. However, there is no enforcement of this rule. NASA claimed that by the end of 2014, 1 in 5 of US originating and over a third of all non-US CubeSats are in direct contravention of the 25 year ‘guideline’.
Even if everyone complies, operational issues arise to increase the risk of collision. The space station, for instance, will release a lot of CubeSats at the same time. These CubeSats will come off in this cloud, and the JSpOC is trying to track them and add them to their catalog of objects, so that other satellites can avoid them.
The problem with this “cloud” of satellites is that it can take up to a week for JSpOC to figure out which satellite is which and add them to their catalogue. Other spacecraft cannot take action against them because their position is not known. There is always this time lag after launch of a CubeSat, or deployment of a CubeSat, when other objects can’t be protected.”
Based on a prediction that CubeSat launches will exceed 200 per annum and at that volume, some argue that the risk is too great. Because of the much greater uncertainties in the positions of the CubeSats, a simulation found that the collision risk posed by the CubeSats was 30 times greater than for a single satellite.
Worryingly, that simulation has already proved accurate in one instance. It predicted CubeSat collisions should have started in the 2013 to 2014 period and, sure enough, the first one happened in May 2013. It resulted in the loss of Ecuador’s first CubeSat, NEE-01 Pegaso.
The follow on to accidental collision opens a huge can of worms labelled Space Law. There are few precedents, no laws, multi billions of dollars at stake – perfect, fertile ground for the legal profession.
Who can launch want and into what orbit? Should there be enforceable laws?
So, it is against this backdrop that a Russian project comes to the fore. As stated in an earlier story; as of January of this year, Roscosmos, the Russian equivalent of NASA became a ‘private’ commercial entity. This was to better enable it to sell more RD-180 rocket engines to the Americans without them seeming to come from the ‘state’ – with which the Americans still have an embargo.
If there was any doubt about the switch from communism to commercialism, Roscosmos confirmed a project to be paid for by the Russian ‘crowd funding’ organisation ‘Boomstarter’. The project is called Mayak, meaning Beacon and some 1.7 million roubles has been raised by this novel funding method. What does the crowd want for its money – an orbiting mirror to reflect the Sun as a memorial to the history and tradition of Russian achievements in space!
Reflecting the Sun and new bright object in the sky
The 16 metre tetrahedron shaped reflector is a possible launch later this year on a Soyuz-2 rocket and will take its place in a low Earth orbit. It will bounce back the sun’s rays to Earth as it orbits, making it brighter than any star in the night sky.
So later this year when you look up at the brightest star you can see in the sky, you can say (to paraphrase John McEnroe) ‘You cannot be Sirius’ – Seriously?.
By Frank Bonner
When looking at permanent settlements on the Moon there are essentially two options:
building on the lunar surface, or looking for a pre-existing underground chamber which can be made airtight.
In recent years there has been growing interest in the second approach. In particular the search has been on for suitable lava tubes which might be of substantial size in the areas of interest for a permanent settlement. There are a number of good reasons for this. It would mean that the need to transport material to the site for building purposes would be much reduced.
An underground location is likely to be inherently safer against both meteor strikes and solar and cosmic radiation than a surface site. Making an appropriate lava tube habitable may involve little more than building an airtight door at the entrance to the tube. A sufficiently large lava tube would allow for expanding the settlement at little more cost than transporting people and their immediate technological needs there in the first place.
It is no surprise therefore that a lot of effort has gone into identifying suitable lava tubes. These lava tubes are fairly ancient structures left over from a time when the Moon was geologically active. As the name implies they transported molten lava from the Moon’s interior to the surface and were key to forming the great lava plains of the Moon’s Seas (Maria). The entrance to these lava tubes would show up as pits on the lunar surface and a number of these have been identified from photography of the Moon’s surface.
The photo shows a pit, initially discovered by the Japanese Kaguya spacecraft which is believed to be the entrance to a lava tube 65 metres wide and 80 metres deep in an area of the Moon known as the Marius Hills.
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has photographed over 200 of these pits which show signs of leading into lava tubes. Current best estimates say that these pits lead to chambers with diameters from 5 to 900 metres although there is no reason, in principle why some of these caverns could not measure several kilometres across – large enough to encompass a whole city.
The problem to date is that all of this has been inferred from looking at the surface of the Moon and its sinuous rilles in particular. There has been no hard proof of the existence of these chambers.
Developing better information on where these lava tubes are and their size and whether they exist at all has become an important piece of research and data from the GRAIL mission is starting to shine a clearer light on these issues.
The Grail satellites collected detailed data on the gravity variations on the Moon.
The photo shows that there are quite wide variations in gravity across the Moon’s surface.
This information allowed a team of scientists at the Aeronautics and Astronautics Department of Purdue University in Indiana, led by Rohan Sood to get a better idea of what the Moon’s interior looks like and, in particular, the expected buried lava tubes.
Changes in the Moon’s gravity reflect changes in the amount and density of the material in the area being measured. In the area of the Marius Hills where the hole shown above is located they found the signature of a subsurface cavity. They also found signatures for at least a further ten features that could be lava tubes, spread across the surface of the Moon and close to ancient volcanic seas. Some of these signatures indicate tubes measuring more than 100 Km’s long and several Km’s wide.
The team announced their results in a paper – Detection of Buried Empty Lunar Lava Tubes Using Grail Gravity Data which they presented to the 47th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in Texas. As they point out in their paper this is not a definitive proof of the existence of these lava tubes because of a mismatch in the size of the tubes versus the Grail data.
It is however a strong indication of their existence and points to some of them at least being far larger than had previously been thought. In the end it is likely to take a mission with ground penetrating radar to finally confirm the existence or otherwise of these lava tubes, something that might be possible with the upcoming LAROSS mission.
It is certainly something which is exciting the proponents of a subsurface lunar settlement.