Self-Healing Computers for Damaged Spaceships

View of the Westar 6 satellite while Dale Gardner retrieves it during STS-51-A in 1984 (NASA)

What happens when a robotic space probe breaks down millions of miles away from the nearest spacecraft engineer? If there is a software bug, engineers can sometimes correct the problem by uploading new commands, but what if the computer hardware fails? If the hardware is controlling something critical like the thrusters or communications system, there isn’t a lot mission control can do; the mission may be lost. Sometimes failed satellites can be recovered from orbit, but as there’s no interplanetary towing service for missions to Mars. Can anything be done for damaged computer systems far from home? The answer might lie in a project called “Scalable Self-Configurable Architecture for Reusable Space Systems”. But don’t worry, machines aren’t becoming self-aware, they’re just learning how to fix themselves…

When spacecraft malfunction on the way to their destinations, often there’s not a lot mission controllers can do. Of course, if they are within our reach (i.e. satellites in Earth orbit), there’s the possibility that they can be picked up by Space Shuttle crews or fixed in orbit. In 1984 for example, two malfunctioning satellites were picked up by Discovery on the STS-51A mission (pictured above). Both communications satellites had malfunctioning motors and couldn’t maintain their orbits. In 1993 Space Shuttle Endeavour (STS-61) carried out an orbital mirror-change on the Hubble Space Telescope. (Of course, there’s always the option that top secret dead spy satellites can be shot down too.)

Although both of the retrieve/repair mission examples above most likely involved mechanical failure, the same could have been done if their onboard computer systems failed (if it was worth the cost of an expensive manned repair mission). But what if one of the robotic missions beyond Earth orbit suffered a frustrating hardware malfunction? It needn’t be a huge error either (if it happened on Earth, the problem could probably be fixed quickly), but in space with no engineer present, this small error could spell doom for the mission.

So what’s the answer? Build a computer that can fix itself. It might sound like the Terminator 2 storyline, but researchers at the University of Arizona are investigating this possibility. NASA is funding the work and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory is taking them seriously.

Ali Akoglu (assistant professor in computer engineering) and his team are developing a hybrid hardware/software system that may be used by computers to heal themselves. The researchers are using Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs) to create self-healing processes at the chip-level.

FPGAs use a combination of hardware and software. Because some hardware functions are carried out at chip-level, the software acts as FPGA “firmware”. Firmware is a common computer term where specific software commands are embedded in a hardware device. Although the microprocessor processes firmware as it would any normal piece of software, this particular command is specific to that processor. In this respect, firmware mimics hardware processes. This is where Akoglu’s research comes in.

The researchers are in the second phase of the project called Scalable Self-Configurable Architecture for Reusable Space Systems (SCARS) and have set up five wireless networked units that could easily represent five cooperating rovers on Mars. When a hardware malfunction occurs, the networked “buddies” deal with the problem on two levels. First, the troubled unit attempts to repair the glitch at node level. By reconfiguring the firmware, the unit is effectively reconfiguring the circuit, bypassing the error. If it is unsuccessful, the unit’s buddies perform a back-up operation, reprogramming themselves to carry out the broken unit operations as well as their own. Unit-level intelligence is used in the first case, but should this fail, network-level intelligence is used. All the operations are performed automatically, there is no human intervention

This is some captivating research with far-reaching benefits. If computers could heal themselves at long-distance, millions of dollars would be saved. Also, the longevity of space missions may be extended. This research would also be valuable to future manned missions. Although the majority of computer issues can be fixed by astronauts, critical systems failures will occur; using a system such as SCARS could perform life-saving back up whilst the source of the problem is being found.

Source: UA News

ATV Jules Verne Boosts Space Station to Higher Orbit (Video)

Jules Verne pushing the ISS along (ESA)

For the first time since docking with the International Space Station (ISS) on April 3rd, the Automated Transfer Vehicle (A T V) “Jules Verne” has been awoken and instructed to carry out an impressive task: push the ISS to a higher orbit. The robotic supply vessel, currently attached to the station’s Zvezda module carried out a 12 minute 20 second burn of its main engines. This is the first time an ESA spaceship has carried out such a task and it appears to have performed flawlessly, lifting the 280 tonne station 4.5 km (2.8 miles) to a new altitude of 342 km (213 miles). In true ESA style, they’ve even released a cool video simulation of the event…

Periodically, the ISS needs a small push in the right direction. As the station orbits Earth, it experiences a small amount of friction from the extended atmosphere of our planet. This atmospheric drag slows the orbiting outpost, making it drop to a lower orbit. When needed, the ISS must to be pushed to higher altitudes. Until now, “re-boosts” have been performed by the Space Shuttle, Russian Progress and by the ISS itself; but today, it was the turn of the most advanced European spacecraft ever put into space. Due to the large quantities of fuel still on board, Jules Verne is ideal for this manoeuvre.

At 04:22 GMT Friday morning, two of the four powerful ATV rockets burst to life after being given the signal from mission control in Toulouse, France. The supply ship provided a thrust of 2.65 m/s, accelerating the ISS along its orbital path. This increased speed increased its orbit. Mission controllers carefully monitored events for the long 740 seconds.

See the ESA video simulation of the ATV re-boost »

This re-boost comes after three weeks of inactivity for the ATV. The unmanned cargo vessel was launched on March 9th to take 1150 kg (2535 lb) of water, food and other supplies to the ISS. This proved to be a very busy time for space traffic control. First the ATV was launched, then on March 11th Space Shuttle Endeavour was sent on her way, then on April 8th Soyuz ISS 16S was launched. Jules Verne drew the short straw and had to wait in a parking orbit until Endeavour had docked, carried out its mission and then returned home. The ATV used this time to run tests until it was cleared for docking on April 3rd.

Now the ISS is ready for the arrival of Space Shuttle Discovery (STS-124) scheduled for launch at the end of May. Discovery will deliver the Japanese Kibo laboratory to be installed on the growing station. Another three re-boosts are planned for the ATV on June 12th, July 8th and August 6th. Shortly after the last boost, Jules Verne is destined to be detached from the Zvezda module and dropped into the atmosphere, carrying 6.5 tonnes of trash into a controlled re-entry burn over the Pacific Ocean. A sad end to an amazing piece of technology.

Source: ESA

Soyuz Hard Landing: The Facts

Rescue helicopters next to the askew Soyuz on Saturday (Shamil Zhumatov)

Now the dust has settled news sources appear to be coherently reporting the events that unfolded early Saturday morning. As several readers have shown concern that reporting on the Soyuz ballistic re-entry makes us opposed to Russian efforts in space, I hope these points clearly show that this is not the case. In actuality, without the Russian Soyuz fleet of personnel/cargo supply spacecraft, much of the international community’s plans for space would be scuppered. So, what do we know happened after the Soyuz descent capsule undocked from the space station in the early hours of Saturday?

Well, most of the original reports appeared to be fairly accurate. From Tuesday, it seems that much of the reports from news agencies in the US and UK have been corroborated with the Russian news agency Interfax. On April 23rd, William Gerstenmaier, NASA’s associate administrator for space operations, gave a statement as to what went wrong. So here’s what we know:

  • Due to a technical fault, and not crew error, the Soyuz descent capsule did not separate from its propulsion module as planned. The explosive bolts used to separate the Soyuz modules before re-entry didn’t work on time. This may have resulted in the descent module and propulsion module hitting the atmosphere before they separated.
  • It is not clear if the modules were separated late by the explosive bolts, or if they were pulled apart (Gerstenmaier points out that they may break apart on re-entry, allowing the descent module and crew to make an emergency landing). Either way, a “ballistic re-entry” (rather than the planned guided re-entry) was the result. Ballistic re-entry was likened by Gerstenmaier to, “a bullet out of a rifle,” before the parachutes opened.
  • The crew experienced forces up to 8.2 times greater than Earth’s gravity.
  • The re-entry caused damage to the capsule escape hatch due to the angle of descent. Areas other than the heat shield had been burnt. The communications antenna was lost at this stage.
  • NASA confirms there was no communication with the capsule until cosmonaut Colonel Yuri Malenchenko was able to get free of the cabin and use a satellite phone to contact mission control. This was 30 minutes after touch-down.

The Soyuz landing site (Shamil Zhumatov)

So it appears the emergency landing was actually very successful. As pointed out by Gerstenmaier the Soyuz spacecraft design has “an inherent reliability in the system.” After all, the original manned Soyuz spacecraft design was launched in 1967, and since then there have been 99 missions (11 since 2002). It is a rugged and highly dependable space vehicle, and in 2010 when the Space Shuttle is retired we will need Soyuz to supply the space station and transport personnel. The Orion space ship isn’t scheduled to launch until 2015, so there is a five year gap that will need to be filled. NASA is looking into commercial options, but the tried, tested and reliable Soyuz remains the best option.

However, the way this incident was handled is highly worrying. I just hope that a thorough investigation into the technical fault and the way Russian officials covered up events is carried out, so future re-entries can be better managed.

In case you missed the Universe Today coverage of this story:

Sources: McClatchy
, Orlando Sentinel

Solar Sail Space Travel One Step Closer to Reality

An artist concept of the solar sail. The center package contains the solar panels powering an electron gun that keeps the many tethers charged. (Allt om vetenskap)

Solar sails were once thought to belong in the realms of science fiction. Huge canopies of lightweight tin foil catching the solar photon breeze, slowly allowing spacecraft to cruise around our solar system propelled by the small but continuous radiation pressure. Recent years however have shown that solar sail spacecraft could be engineered in reality, and a new solar sail invention from the Finnish Meteorological Institute could push this goal one step closer. Rather than using solar radiation pressure, this new concept makes use of the highly charged particles in the solar wind to give the craft its propulsion. Additionally, through radio wave electron excitation, the system may amplify the solar wind acceleration effects, giving the spacecraft a “boost” function…

A traditional solar sail concept from NASA (NASA)

Traditionally, solar sails make use for the momentum carried by photons of electromagnetic radiation from the Sun. Using a huge canopy of ultra-lightweight (but robust) material, the sail experiences a force from the incident sunlight. Some advanced concepts also theorized the use of planetary lasers to propel solar sail-powered spacecraft from A to B. Opting for solar propulsion would be the ultimate energy conservation method yet, optimizing payload transportation, maximizing fuel efficiency. Make a solar sail big enough, steady momentum can be transferred from the solar photons, accelerating the spacecraft. There are of course many hurdles to this design, but prototypes have been built (although many failed to make it into space due to rocket launch failures).

Dr. Pekka Janhunen demonstrating the solar sail design (Antonin Halas)

In a departure from the photon-powered solar sail, scientists and engineers have started to look into the properties of solar wind particles as a possible source of propulsion. The advantages of using solar wind particles are they a) are electrically charged, b) have high velocity (interplanetary scintillation observations have deduced velocities as high as 800 km/s, or 1.8 million miles per hour), and c) are abundant in interplanetary space throughout the solar system (particularly at solar maximum). So the new Finnish concept will take full advantage of this highly charged interplanetary medium. Using a fan of very long, electrically charged cables (stretching many kilometres from the central spacecraft), the similarly charged solar wind particles (mainly positively-charged protons) will hit the fan of positively-charged cables (generating a repulsive electric field), giving the cables a small proton-sized “kick”, exchanging their momentum into spacecraft thrust. Cable charge is maintained by a solar-powered electron gun, using two conventional solar panels as an energy source. A radio-frequency “boost” will also be tested in the prototype model. Radio waves will cause electron heating, possibly enhancing the solar sail’s thrust.

The project is currently being engineered and researchers from Finland, Germany, Sweden, Russia, and Italy are currently developing various components of the solar sail. Successful implementation of the prototype that could be launched in three years depends on securing $8 million (5 million euros) in funding.

Sources: Finnish Meteorological Institute, Live Science

Soyuz Capsule Hatch Nearly Burned Up and Crew’s Lives Were on a “Razor’s Edge”

The blackened Soyuz descent capsule after re-entry (BBC)

First, Russian space officials tried to cover up the emergency landing of the Soyuz descent capsule on Saturday. Then they blamed the crew for changing their flight plan without communicating with mission control. Compounding the problem, an official cited a bad omen as a contributing factor to the hard landing. Within a couple of days, the truth behind the Soyuz “ballistic re-entry” began to come to light. Today, even more shocking revelations are being reported, including how the escape hatch nearly failed during the uncontrolled, fiery re-entry…

On Sunday, the Universe Today reported on the off-target landing of the Russian Soyuz descent capsule carrying South Korea’s first astronaut, Yi So-yeon, Russian cosmonaut Yuri Malenchenko and NASA record breaker (for most time spent in space) American Peggy Whitson back from the International Space Station (ISS). The capsule had landed short of its intended target, 20 minutes behind schedule. The authorities later blamed the mishap on a change in flight plan and suggested the crew were to blame. Then, surprisingly, Federal Space Agency chief Anatoly Perminov placed some of the blame on the female dominant crew, saying women on board space missions were bad luck.

Yesterday, I reported on some updates to the drama that had unfolded. Apparently, even before the rescue helicopters had located the capsule, the Russian space agency publicised the crew’s safe return, covering up the fact they had no idea where they were. What’s more, the helicopters had been sent to the wrong location, and it was by chance that the capsule’s parachutes were spotted. The capsule had landed in a zone reserved for emergency touch-downs and the crew suffered a “hard landing”. Not being able to send a signal to mission control, the crew remained upside down, strapped to their seats for 25 minutes. Malenchenko was able to unlatch himself to get outside to use a satellite phone. Some news agencies reported that the parachute had even caught alight and set the surrounding vegetation on fire.

Today, even more revelations have been reported. According to an unnamed Russian space official, the capsule had entered the atmosphere in an uncontrolled manner. Rather than the capsule’s heat shield taking the frictional re-entry burn, the escape hatch became exposed and bore the brunt of the high temperatures outside. The hatch sustained substantial damage. The antenna was also exposed to the heat, completely burning it up, explaining why the crew were unable to communicate with the ground. A valve that equalizes cabin with atmospheric pressure was also damaged.

The fact that the entire crew ended up whole and undamaged is a great success. Everything could have turned out much worse. You could say the situation was on a razor’s edge.” – Anonymous Russian space official involved in the descent investigation.

Russian Federal Space Agency spokesman, Alexander Vorobyov, continued to downplay the series of events saying that antennae were regularly damaged during capsule re-entries. He rated Saturday’s event as a “3”, where “5” on the scale would be critical.

This troubled landing has naturally raised questions about the safety record of the Soyuz capsules currently being used. This is the second time in a row (and the third since 2003) that there have been serious problems during re-entry of Soyuz capsules. The official continued to say that there can be no guarantee that this will not happen again:

Considering that this situation has repeated itself, it is obvious that the technological discipline in preparing space equipment for a flight is declining. There is no guarantee that the crew of a Soyuz spacecraft landing a half a year from now would not face the same difficulties.” – Anonymous Russian space official

During the confusion as to where the Soyuz capsule had landed, there are unconfirmed reports that the U.S. Defence Department tracked the off-target landing and pinpointed its location for Russian helicopters. NASA is reserving comment until the Russian Federal Space Agency finds the cause of the uncontrolled descent.

Investigators suspect that the ballistic re-entry was caused by an electrical short in the cable that connects the crew capsule’s control panel with the Soyuz descent hardware. A short circuit in this cable can automatically trigger the ballistic re-entry mode and there is little the crew could have done to prevent it.

Sources: The Associated Press, New Scientist

New Facts Emerge from Soyuz Emergency Landing

The capsule after making an emergency landing (AP)

The facts behind the “ballistic re-entry” of the Soyuz descent capsule are beginning to come to light. According to several news sources, after the capsule made an unusual steep descent through the atmosphere, putting it at least 400km off-target, the parachute was set alight causing a small bush fire on landing. The crew, who had to wait upside down, reported smoke inside the capsule. Although the Russian space agency overseeing the rescue helicopters reported that the crew were safely on the ground, in reality they were struggling to find their location. Russian cosmonaut Yuri Malenchenko had to unhook himself from the askew craft, get outside and use a satellite phone to confirm they were alive and well. Tough questions are now being asked as to why mission control lost track of the capsule in the first place and why they covered up the reality of the landing till so long after the event…

As previously reported on the Universe Today, something went wrong with the Soyuz descent capsule as it completed its return mission from the International Space Station on Saturday. Back then, the Russian space authority reported the capsule had undergone a ballistic re-entry (rather than the planned “guided descent”) after the crew changed the flight plan without communicating the alteration to mission control. This was the sole (official) reason given for the hard landing the three crew members suffered. South Korea’s first astronaut, Yi So-yeon, Russian cosmonaut Yuri Malenchenko and American Peggy Whitson endured forces exceeding nine-G (nine-times Earth gravity) as they tumbled through the atmosphere.

One Russian space official cited an old naval superstition that having women on board the flight was a “bad omen” and that planners would reconsider having a female-dominant crew in the future. These remarks understandably caused a stir.

According to one news source, it is more likely that the capsule’s autopilot failed, causing the ballistic re-entry. On the ground, Russian officials guessed that the capsule had overshot the landing zone and sent rescue helicopters to a location far east. By chance a helicopter in the west (a location reserved for emergency landings) reported seeing the parachutes of the capsule, but no contact was made with the crew until 30 minutes after landing. Way before contact was made (via satellite phone), the Russian space agency had been publicising the safe return of the Soyuz crew to divert attention from the problems they were having.

Perhaps the most worrying report is that the descent parachute caught fire and burnt surrounding vegetation. Apparently smoke even got into the capsule. This would have undoubtedly caused a lot of stress to the crew.

In a recent interview with South Korea’s first astronaut Yi So-yeon, the 29 year-old bioengineer remembered her ordeal and admitted she was “really scared” as the capsule began its emergency re-entry:

During descent I saw some kind of fire outside as we were going through the atmosphere. At first I was really scared because it looked really, really hot and I thought we could burn.” – Yi So-yeon

The shaken crew members were still shaken as they gave a press conference on Monday. Malenchenko remained adamant that none of the crew were to blame for the ballistic re-entry. “There was no action of the crew that led to this,” he said. “Time will tell what went wrong.

This incident highlights the risk involved with space travel, and whilst access to space is becoming more and more routine, the fact remains that things can go wrong. Many news sources are highly critical of the Russian space agency, arguing that they are incompetent. This might be a little strong, but in matters such as the safe return of astronauts, absolute clarity is needed. Attempts to cover up technical faults, citing of “bad omens” and misinformation will not help the Russian efforts in space.

Sources: AP, MSNBC, Yahoo!, Space.com

Radiation Sickness, Cellular Damage and Increased Cancer Risk for Long-term Missions to Mars

A mission to Mars will benefit from a mini-magnetosphere (NASA)

There is a nagging problem under the surface of the excitement surrounding the future of long-term missions into space. Human exposure to the high amounts of solar radiation and other sources of cosmic rays is likely to be the main factor that could curtail mankind’s dreams for future manned settlements on other planets. The effects of radiation exposure to astronauts is not fully understood, but could range from acute radiation sickness (perhaps after being caught in an intense solar storm during interplanetary transit) to gradual cellular damage, greatly increasing the risk of cancer in long-term missions. So what can we do about it? Mankind is highly adaptive and some countermeasures are gradually being realized. (And yes, the Russian Space Monkeys might be able to help…)

The problem comes when humans leave the protective blanket of the Earth’s magnetic field. Acting like a huge, invisible force field, the magnetosphere deflects most of the harmful high energy particles being fired from the Sun. Anything that penetrates this barrier is quickly absorbed by our thick atmosphere. Even at high altitudes, in low Earth orbit, some protection to astronauts can be provided (although the ambient radiation is far higher up there than down here). So when we talk about colonizing other planets and sending astronauts further and further into deep space, radiation exposure becomes a bigger risk.

Solar flares will be a problem for future colonists (SOHO/EIT)

An immediate concern is that astronauts may get caught in a solar storm, where the Sun (usually around solar maximum) ejects huge clouds of highly energetic protons. If the storm is intense enough, huge doses of radiation could be inflicted on the men and women in space. Roughly, a dose of 500 rads or more will kill a human in two to three hours, and a smaller dose could cause acute radiation sickness. Radiation sickness could be fatal in weeks should the astronaut not receive urgent medical care. How about the long-term, gradual impact of prolonged exposure to higher-than-normal doses of radiation? This is an area of space medicine that we do not completely understand as yet.

In new research by the Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center at Georgetown University Medical Center, the high-energy nature of radiation in space may lead to premature aging and prolonged oxidative stress in cells. This also suggests that astronauts risk a higher than normal risk of cancers, such as colon cancer, through exposure to “high linear energy transfer” (LET) radiation. LET radiation consists of the high energy protons emitted by the Sun and cause a huge amount of damage to small areas of tissue.

Radiation exposure, either intentional or accidental, is inevitable during our lifetimes, but with plans for a mission to Mars, we need to understand more about the nature of radiation in space. There is currently no conclusive information for estimating the risk that astronauts may experience.” – Kamal Datta, M.D., assistant professor at Lombardi and lead author.

With NASA’s Project Constellation on the horizon, there has been a focus on the long-term effects of interplanetary radiation. Ultimately, this project aims to send humans to the Moon and Mars, but there are strong indicators that astronauts will face in increased cancer risk and lifespan reduction, a massive hindrance to a mission spanning several months or a thriving proto-settlement.

This is where the lab mice help us out. The amount of “free radicals” (highly reactive molecules often linked with cancer and cell aging) were measured and found that the mice developed highly oxidative (i.e. full of free radical molecules) gastrointestinal tracts when exposed to space-like high-LET radiation. The Lombardi group concluded that the mice had developed a high risk to various cancers, particularly gastrointestinal cancers. They also noticed that after exposure (even after two months), the mice prematurely aged, signifying that the effect of radiation damage can persist long after exposure to a high-LET environment.

So what can we do? There are several plans in motion to further test the effects of radiation on humans and to predict when astronauts will be at risk. This week, Russia announced (controversial) plans to send monkeys back into space, possibly as far as Mars. Once the shock of this “outdated” proposal wore off (the previous Russian space monkey program ran out of funding in the 1990’s), it became very clear as to what the Russian space agency is hoping to achieve: to have a better understanding of the long-term exposure to a high-LET environment on the human physiology. Many will argue that this practice is cruel and unnecessary, but others will say monkeys are used in experiments every day, why shouldn’t they help us in the ultra-modern world of space travel? The jury is still out on this debate, but there are many ways to investigate and counteract the radiation effect on humans.

Energetic particle tracks in a bubble chamber (NASA)

There are also many systems in place to protect mankind from the onslaught of solar storms. Using the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) and other craft located between the Earth and Sun, an early warning system has been set up to provide astronauts on orbit with some time to take cover should a solar flare be launched Earth-bound. This system is fully operational and has already proven itself. Recently, I toyed with the idea of a similar Mars-based early warning system, providing future Mars colonies with about 40 minutes advanced notice of an incoming solar storm.

Shielding is another obvious protective measure. Lunar and Mars colonies are most likely going to use large amounts of regolith to block the incoming particles. Only a few meters of locally dug-up regolith will provide excellent protection. But what about the journey to Mars? How will the astronauts of projects such as Constellation be protected? Perhaps an advanced “Ion Shield” might work?

Whatever the effect of radiation on humans in space, it seems obvious that we are in the infancy of space flight and we are already addressing some of the most difficult problems. Over the next few years, much effort will be focused on the health of astronauts, hopefully finding some answers to the space radiation problem.

Original source: Georgetown University Medical Center

Russian Memorial for Space Dog Laika (Update)

Laika statue outside a research facility in Moscow (AP Photo/RIA-Novosti, Alexei Nikolsky)

On Friday Russian officials unveiled a monument to Laika, the pioneering dog that led the way to manned spaceflight on November 3rd, 1957. Her little memorial is a model dog standing atop a rocket near a military research facility in Moscow. When she made the historic flight into space on board Sputnik II, very little was known about the effects of launch and zero-gravity on an animal and Laika wasn’t thought to make it. Due to her being so small and hardy, she made it into orbit, but this was a one way ticket, she had no idea there would be no coming home… be warned, this isn’t a happy tale

The dogs chosen for the Russian space program were usually stray mongrels as it was believed they could survive and adapt in harsh conditions. Also, small dogs were chosen as they could fit into the capsule and were light for launch. Two year old Laika was apparently chosen from the animal shelter in Moscow for her good looks. After all, the first Russian into space would need to be photogenic. There was intense excitement about her selection for participation in the space race and she endeared herself to scientists and the public; she was described as “quiet and charming”.

Laika before launch in 1957 (NASA)

Unfortunately Laika’s trip was far from humane. She had to wait for three days before launch locked inside the capsule whilst technical problems with the launch were fixed. Operators had to keep her warm by pumping hot air into her cockpit as the temperatures around the launch pad were freezing. Once the launch was successful, doctors were able to keep track of her heartbeat and her blood pressure. The official story was that her heartbeat was fast at the launch, but she calmed down and was able to eat a specially prepared meal in orbit.

There are mixed reports about what happened next, but the official Soviet version was that Laika was able to live in space for a week, and then she was euthanized remotely. However, after the Soviet Union collapsed, reports from mission scientists suggested that she only lived for a couple of days and was put down, or (most likely) the cabin overheated soon after orbital insertion, killing her within hours.

Laika before launch in 1957 (AP Photo/NASA)

Interestingly, scientists did not announce that she was to die in orbit until after she was launched. Sputnik II was not equipped with a re-entry system and the craft burned up in the atmosphere after 2,570 orbits on April 14th, 1958.

It is easy for us to look back on Laika’s journey distastefully, but in the days of the Cold War, there was huge pressure on scientists to produce results in the Soviet Union and the USA. Sending dogs and other “guinea pigs” (I wonder, have any actual Guinea Pigs been sent into space?) into orbit was the most viable means to understand the effects of space travel. Regardless, she paved the way for other orbiting dogs (to be safely returned this time) and by 1961, enough data had been gathered to send the first man into space: Yuri Gagarin.

Original source: Associated Press

Does a Boomerang Work in Space?

boomerang-in-space.thumbnail.jpg

Testing a boomerang in space might look and sound trivial, but it’s an exciting physics experiment that helps scientists to understand the dynamics of flight in microgravity. And now, one aspect of the “boomerang in space” question has finally been tested and answered. Japanese astronaut Takao Doi “threw a boomerang and saw it come back” during his free time on March 18 at the International Space Station, said a spokeswoman for the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency. “I was very surprised and moved to see that it flew the same way it does on Earth,” the 53-year-old Doi was quoted as saying. This test was done inside a pressurized module of the ISS. But, one big question about boomerangs in space remains:

Will it work in the vacuum of space?

No, says boomerang expert and designer Gary Broadbent. The boomerang that was used in the experiment on board the ISS was a design of Broadbent’s called a “Roomerang,” a small, tri-blade boomerang intended for use indoors in a small area or outdoors in light winds. It travels 5 to 8 feet before returning to the thrower.

Broadbent told Universe Today that a boomerang would not work in the vacuum of space. “You need air molecules to generate the lift to make the boomerang turn,” Broadbent said.

But he also added that in the pressurized environment of the ISS, “microgravity has very little effect on the boomerang flight. The boomerang is so versatile, it can be tuned to fly in a perfect path back to the thrower, with gyroscopic precession and angular momentum over-compensating the lack of gravity.”
space boomerang.  Image courtesy of Gary Broadbent

Doi decided on boomerang tests after he received a request from Yasuhiro Togai, a world boomerang champion who helped Doi train to throw a boomerang correctly. Broadbent said that he has part of the preparations as well, and has been to Florida 3 times in the past month, working on the experiment with Doi.

The wings of a boomerang are set at a slight tilt and they have an airfoil design (rounded on one side and flat on the other, just like an airplane wing), which gives the wing lift.

The uneven force caused by the difference in speed between the three wings (two wings on a regular boomerang) applies a constant force which forces the boomerang to turn. So, just as if you lean in one direction while riding a bicycle, and the bike turns in that direction, the boomerang is constantly turning with force in one direction, so that it travels in a circle and comes back to its starting point.

Even though Broadbent says boomerangs wouldn’t work in a vacuum, it still would be fun to test it. The only problem of doing this experiment out in space is that the boomerang would just become another piece of potentially dangerous space junk in Earth orbit.

A videotape of the experiment performed during the STS-123 mission will likely be released in the near future.

Original News Source: Physorg.com and email interview with Gary Broadbent. For more information on Broadbent’s Boomerang’s see Gary’s website

The Mars Curse

beagle2.thumbnail.jpg

Admittedly, Mars has drawn more space missions than the rest of the Solar System’s planets, but why have nearly two thirds of all Mars missions failed in some way? Is the “Galactic Ghoul” or the “Mars Triangle” real? Or is it a case of technological trial-and-error? In any case, the Mars Curse has been a matter of debate for many years, but recent missions to the Red Planet haven’t only reached their destination, they are surpassing our wildest expectations. Perhaps our luck is changing…

In 1964, NASA’s Mariner 3 was launched from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. In space, its solar panels failed to open and the batteries went flat. Now it’s orbiting the Sun, dead. In 1965, Russian controllers lost contact with Zond 2 after it lost one of its solar panels. It lifelessly floated past Mars in the August of that year, only 1,500 km away from the planet. In March and April, 1969, the twin probes in the Soviet Mars 1969 program both suffered launch failure, 1969A exploded minutes after launch and 1969B took a U-turn and crashed to earth. More recently, NASA’s Mars Climate Orbiter crashed into the Red Planet in 1999 after an embarrassing measurement unit mix-up caused the satellite to enter the atmosphere too low. On Christmas 2003, the world waited for a signal from the UK Mars lander, Beagle 2, after it separated from ESA’s Mars Express. To this day, there’s been no word.

Looking over the past 48 years of Mars exploration, it makes for sad reading. A failed mission here, a “lost” mission there, with some unknowns thrown in for good measure. It would seem that mankind’s efforts to send robots to Mars have been thwarted by bad luck and strange mysteries. Is there some kind of Red Planet Triangle (much like the Bermuda Triangle), perhaps with its corners pointing to Mars, Phobos and Deimos? Is the Galactic Ghoul really out there devouring billions of dollars-worth of hardware?

The strange-looking DR 6 nebula as observed by the Spitzer telescope - well, it could be the face of the Galactic Ghoul… (credit: NASA)

The “Galactic Ghoul” has been mentioned jokingly by NASA scientists to describe the misfortune of space missions, particularly Mars missions. Looking at the statistics of failed missions, you can’t help but think that there are some strange forces at play. During NASA’s Mars Pathfinder mission, there was a technical hitch as the airbags were deflated after the rover mission landed in 1998, prompting one of the rover scientists to mention that perhaps the Galactic Ghoul was beginning to rear its ugly head:

The great galactic ghoul had to get us somewhere, and apparently the ghoul has decided to pick on the rover.” – Donna Shirley, JPL’s Mars program manager and Sojourner’s designer, in an interview in 1997

Well, there are plenty of answers that explain the losses of these early forays to Mars, putting the Galactic Ghoul to one side for now.

Beginning with the very first manmade objects to land on the Martian surface, Mars 2 and Mars 3, Soviet Union-built Mars lander/orbiter missions in 1971. The lander from Mars 2 is famous for being the first ever robotic explorer on the surface of Mars, but it is also infamous for making the first manmade crater on the surface of Mars. The Mars 3 lander had more luck, it was able to make a soft landing and transmit a signal back to Earth… for 20 seconds. After that, the robot was silenced.

The first rover to land on Mars - Made in Russia (credit: Planetary Society)

Both landers had the first generation of Mars rovers on board; tethered to the landing craft, they would have had a range of 15 meters from the landing site. Alas, neither was used. It is thought that the Mars 3 lander was blown over by one of the worst dust storms observed on Mars.

To travel from Earth to Mars over a long seven months, separate from its orbiter, re-enter the Martian atmosphere and make a soft landing was a huge technological success in itself – only to get blown over by a dust storm is the ultimate example of “bad luck” in my books! Fortunately, both the Mars 2 and 3 orbiters completed their missions, relaying huge amounts of data back to Earth.

The ill-fated NASA Mars Observer before launch (credit: NASA)

This isn’t the only example where “bad luck” and “Mars mission” could fall into the same sentence. In 1993, NASA’s Mars Observer was only three days away from orbital insertion around Mars when it stopped transmitting. After a very long 337 day trip from Earth it is thought that on pressurizing the fuel tanks in preparation for its approach, the orbiters propulsion system started to leak monomethyl hydrazine and helium gas. The leakage caused the craft to spin out of control, switching its electronics into “safe” mode. There was to be no further communication from Mars Observer.

Human error also has a part to play in many of the problems with getting robots to the Red Planet. Probably the most glaring, and much hyped error was made during the development of NASA’s Mars Climate Orbiter. In 1999, just before orbital insertion, a navigation error sent the satellite into an orbit 100 km lower than its intended 150 km altitude above the planet. This error was caused by one of the most expensive measurement incompatibilities in space exploration history. One of NASA’s subcontractors, Lockheed Martin, used Imperial units instead of NASA-specified metric units. This incompatibility in the design units culminated in a huge miscalculation in orbital altitude. The poor orbiter plummeted through the Martian atmosphere and burned up.

An artists impression of the Mars Climate Orbiter (credit: NASA)

Human error is not only restricted to NASA missions. The earlier Russian Phobos 1 mission in 1988 was lost through a software error. Neglecting a programming subroutine that should never have been used during space flight was accidentally activated. The subroutine was known about before the launch of Phobos 1, but engineers decided to leave it, repairing it would require the whole computer to be upgraded. Due to the tight schedule, the spaceship was launched. Although deemed “safe”, the software was activated and the probe was sent into a spin. With no lock on the Sun to fuel its solar panels, the satellite was lost.

The Russian Phobos 1 mission to probe Mars and moon Phobos (credit: NASA)

To date, 26 of the 43 missions to Mars (that’s a whopping 60%) have either failed or only been partially successful in the years since the first Marsnik 1 attempt by the Soviet Union in 1960. In total the USA/NASA has flown 20 missions, six were lost (70% success rate); the Soviet Union/Russian Federation flew 18, only two orbiters (Mars 2 and 3) were a success (11% success rate); the two ESA missions, Mars Express, and Rosetta (fly-by) were both a complete success; the single Japanese mission, Nozomi, in 1998 suffered complications en-route and never reached Mars; and the British lander, Beagle 2, famously went AWOL in 2003.

Despite the long list of failed missions, the vast majority of lost missions to Mars occurred during the early “pioneering” years of space exploration. Each mission failure was taken on board and used to improve the next and now we are entering an era where mission success is becoming the “norm”. NASA currently has two operational satellites around Mars, Mars Odyssey and the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. The European Mars Express is also in orbit.

The Mars Exploration Rovers Spirit and Opportunity continue to explore the Martian landscape as their mission keeps on getting extended.

Recent mission losses, such as the British Beagle 2, are inevitable when we look at how complex and challenging sending robotic explorers into the unknown. There will always be a degree of human error, technology failure and a decent helping of bad fortune, but we seem to be learning from our mistakes and moving forward. There definitely seems to be an improving trend toward mission success over mission failure.

Perhaps, with technological advancement and a little bit of luck, we are overcoming the Mars Curse and keeping the Galactic Ghoul at bay as we gradually gain a strong foothold on a planet we hope to colonize in the not-so-distant future