In the last couple of days there has been an exciting press release by the European Southern Observatory (ESO) in the area of extra-solar planet study. We have known about Jupiter size planets for over 10 years, but this discovery is of 3 super-earths (2 to 10 times larger than Earth) orbiting a single star.

Their HARPS instrument has really started to make it look likely that there are many more extra-solar planets out there than we had previously thought. Although we can not detect Earth size planets yet this discovery would suggest that with the amount of extra-solar planets that do exist it is surely certain that other Earth-like planets are out there and are potentially numerous.

How long before the discovery of an Earth like planet within the 'habitable zone' of a star that satisfies our rather narrow ideas for requirements for life to exist? Before the end of the decade is surely a possibility?

While it may be a while before we are socializing with the cool guys from across the galaxy i think this is a very important area of study - it almost gives credibility to the space program. It provides a real long term objective to the exploration of space and provides actual targets for us to investigate. It will make the possibility of other life in the universe more real when we know for a FACT that there are many other places for other life forms to have developed.

The long term goal of space exploration is surely to reach these targets and maybe, just maybe meet ET.

Image Credit: ESO Press Release Photo 19a/08 (16 June 2008)



Following on from my last post about getting into space I wanted to discuss the other great problem for space exploration - traveling through space.

The velocity at which we travel through space is possibly the biggest cause of the slow development of space exploration since Apollo. Sure we can get into space and travel to the moon in a couple of days but to get a manned flight anywhere else is almost impossible. Even Mars is a 6 month trip each way at best (a long time to be in a small metal tube without gravity or anything more than basic amenities) and due to orbits the mission would have to be extended to over 2 years waiting for a decent launch window on Mars for the return mission. For a mission to Saturn we are up to 7 years travel time each way!

There are incredible dangers involved in space travel and such long travel times mean a prolonged exposure to radiation that could be fatal once out of the protection of the Earth's magnetic field. Even on the Apollo missions the astronauts would be at grave risk if a strong solar flare occurred during a mission. The short duration of each trip was a key to creating favorable odds. There is also the problem of equipment failure, a risk which is greatly increased with extended travel times, and there is no where to go for repairs half way to Mars.

Given all this how much of NASA's budget is being put into finding a solution to this problem? Zero. This is an area of research that NASA simply must address and yet they continue to display worryingly short-sightedness. This is typified by the the fate of the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics (BPP) Project. The BPP Project was sponsored by NASA until from 1996 to 2002 during which time 8 research approaches were addressed and an important body of work was produced including all the journals listed here.

Following the implementation of the 2003 Federal Budget, however, all advanced propulsion research was canceled. Obviously no one wants NASA pouring their entire budget into advanced theories but the total spend over the 6 years on this project was $1.6 million. For comparison NASA's 2008 budget is $17.318 billion. Clearly the amount the BPP Project was costing was virtually insignificant compared to the vast sum of money NASA waste on fruitless exercises. Yet still there was - and continues to be - no room for a valuable project aimed solely at trying to solve the greatest problem in manned space exploration and who's annual budget amounts to less than 0.002% of NASA's total budget.

Now some of these ideas are not likely to produce results but if only one area of research they were looking at did it would make it all worthwhile and we all know that research breeds new ideas for more research. In my opinion the treatment of the BPP Project puts out a very bad message both internally and externally on the ambitions of the world's leading space exploration body. NASA need to start addressing more of what is important for the future and perhaps just as importantly start putting out the right messages to the public about what they stand for.

To sum up my feelings on this I'll quote a member's catchphrase on this website: "NASA Sucks".

Image Credit: NASA CD-98-76634 by Les Bossinas



Well as this is the first post in the new TSS blog I thought I'd start on something that I consider to be of utmost importance. This was highlighted to me again over the last couple of weeks with reports being put out regarding Ares V, NASA's new planned monster booster. Ares 1 and Ares 5 are booster elements of the space agency's Constellation system of "Moon, Mars and beyond" hardware. 'Great' I thought...until i read further.

It appears that the first flight of Ares V is not expected until 2018 at the earliest and Lunar missions would not begin before 2019 or 2020. Not only this but the new booster would simply be shuttling hardware to the Moon to build a lunar outpost for the next several years. This revolutionary booster will not be available to get seriously involved in space science/exploration until 2025 or so.

We then have to consider that there are two main barriers to space exploration: firstly getting hardware out of Earth's gravity well and secondly the time it takes for us to travel through space with our current propulsion technology (it took Cassini 7 years to reach Saturn).

Ares V can do nothing about the second barrier (in fact NASA is nothing almost nothing to address this point) as it is basically the same technology that we already have, albeit much more powerful. But while it should be able to overcome a great deal of the physical problems of lifting the huge weight of equipment due to it's power it will do so at an enormous financial penalty and when all is said and done money is already the reason why space exploration is so slow at the moment.

There are genuine concerns as to whether this new booster is financially viable - surely we are not witnessing the start of another financial and time consuming project, following in the footsteps of the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station, that will bring so little to the objectives of space exploration? I must admit I am starting to worry...

In part two I'll address the second issue of reducing space travel times and on that I have some very strong views.

Username	Posts
Ender	175
MysteryStevenson	113
Antares	85
Galactic Moose	71
Pulsar	41