Universe Today

February 10, 2009December 24, 2015 by Fraser Cain

Are there Green Stars?

[/caption]
We know there are red stars and blue stars, and yellow/white stars like our own Sun, but are there green stars? What would it take to get a star be green?

As you probably know, the color of a star depends on the temperature of its surface. The coolest stars are red, and have a surface temperature of less than 3,500 Kelvin. The hottest stars are blue, and have temperatures above 12,000 Kelvin. Our own Sun gives off an almost purely white light, and it measures 6,800 Kelvin.

Stars can be give off light from every point of the spectrum: infrared, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet, and ultraviolet. Astronomers measure the light curve of the photons coming off a star. In other words, that’s the ratio of photons streaming from the star in every part of the spectrum. The hottest stars have their peak in the blue part of the spectrum, and the coolest stars peak in the red. An average star like our Sun actually peaks in the green part of the spectrum. There are more photons coming from our Sun in the green part of the spectrum, and yet it looks white.

The problem is that stars like our Sun cast off photons in so many colors that it all looks white from our perspective. In order to get a green star, you would need to have a light curve that peaks right at green, but doesn’t give off light in many other colors. And there aren’t any stars that can do that. If you make the star hotter, it just gets bluer. And if you make a star cooler, it just becomes orange and then redder. There’s no way to have a light curve that makes a star look green.

So no, there are no green stars.

There are, however, other objects in space that do look green. These give off enough photons in the green spectrum to overwhelm the other colors. But there aren’t many objects out there.

We have written many articles about stars here on Universe Today. Here’s an article about red stars, and here’s an article about blue stars.

If you’d like more information on stars, check out Hubblesite’s News Releases about Stars, and here’s the stars and galaxies homepage.

We have recorded several episodes of Astronomy Cast about stars. Here are two that you might find helpful: Episode 12: Where Do Baby Stars Come From, and Episode 13: Where Do Stars Go When they Die?

References:
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~ryden/ast162_2/notes8.html
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/07/29/why-are-there-no-green-stars/

February 10, 2009December 24, 2015 by Fraser Cain

Glow in the Dark Stars

[/caption]
Sometimes you’ve just got to bring the Universe home and set it up inside your house. One of my favorite teaching tools for my children are glow in the dark stars. These are luminescent plastic stars and planets that have a sticky adhesive so you can stick them to your ceiling and see constellations when the lights are out. Whether you decide to actually recreate the night sky accurately, or just stick up stars randomly, glow in the dark stars are good fun.

Probably the best source for glow in the dark stars is Amazon.com. They sell a variety of packages to fit any sized ceiling.

Here’s a set of 50 glowing mini-stars with sticky backs. I like the mini-stars better than the bigger ones because they look more like real stars. I wish they didn’t have points, though.

On the other end of the spectrum is this Star Explosion Glow in the Dark. It’s a huge box with more than 500 glow in the dark stars, galaxies, and planets. Some of the pieces are pretty big.

But if you’re going to put glow in the dark stars on your ceiling, do it right. This set, called Nightscapes, gives you glow in the dark paint to make the stars yourself. They give you accurate star charts and show you how to make different sized dots to match stars of different brightness. This is a way to really make the constellations on your ceiling.

We have written many articles about stars here on Universe Today. Here’s an article about the biggest star in the Universe.

If you’d like more information on stars, check out Hubblesite’s News Releases about Stars, and here’s the stars and galaxies homepage.

We have recorded several episodes of Astronomy Cast about stars. Here are two that you might find helpful: Episode 12: Where Do Baby Stars Come From, and Episode 13: Where Do Stars Go When they Die?

February 10, 2009May 4, 2017 by Fraser Cain

Interesting Facts About Stars

Think you know everything there is to know about stars? Think again! Here’s a list of 10 interesting facts about stars; some you might already know, and few that are going to be new.

1. The Sun is the closest star

Okay, this one you should know, but it’s pretty amazing to think that our own Sun, located a mere 150 million km away is average example of all the stars in the Universe. Our own Sun is classified as a G2 yellow dwarf star in the main sequence phase of its life. The Sun has been happily converting hydrogen into helium at its core for 4.5 billion years, and will likely continue doing so for another 7+ billion years. When the Sun runs out of fuel, it will become a red giant, bloating up many times its current size. As it expands, the Sun will consume Mercury, Venus and probably even Earth. Here are 10 facts about the Sun.

2. Stars are made of the same stuff

All stars begin from clouds of cold molecular hydrogen that gravitationally collapse. As they cloud collapses, it fragments into many pieces that will go on to form individual stars. The material collects into a ball that continues to collapse under its own gravity until it can ignite nuclear fusion at its core. This initial gas was formed during the Big Bang, and is always about 74% hydrogen and 25% helium. Over time, stars convert some of their hydrogen into helium. That’s why our Sun’s ratio is more like 70% hydrogen and 29% helium. But all stars start out with 3/4 hydrogen and 1/4 helium, with other trace elements.

3. Stars are in perfect balance

You might not realize but stars are in constant conflict with themselves. The collective gravity of all the mass of a star is pulling it inward. If there was nothing to stop it, the star would just continue collapsing for millions of years until it became its smallest possible size; maybe as a neutron star. But there is a pressure pushing back against the gravitational collapse of the star: light. The nuclear fusion at the core of a star generates a tremendous amount of energy. The photons push outward as they make their journey from inside the star to reach the surface; a journey that can take 100,000 years. When stars become more luminous, they expand outward becoming red giants. And when they run out of light pressure, they collapse down into white dwarfs.

4. Most stars are red dwarfs

If you could collect all the stars together and put them in piles, the biggest pile, by far, would be the red dwarfs. These are stars with less than 50% the mass of the Sun. Red dwarfs can even be as small as 7.5% the mass of the Sun. Below that point, the star doesn’t have the gravitational pressure to raise the temperature inside its core to begin nuclear fusion. Those are called brown dwarfs, or failed stars. Red dwarfs burn with less than 1/10,000th the energy of the Sun, and can sip away at their fuel for 10 trillion years before running out of hydrogen.

5. Mass = temperature = color

The color of stars can range from red to white to blue. Red is the coolest color; that’s a star with less than 3,500 Kelvin. Stars like our Sun are yellowish white and average around 6,000 Kelvin. The hottest stars are blue, which corresponds to surface temperatures above 12,000 Kelvin. So the temperature and color of a star are connected. Mass defines the temperature of a star. The more mass you have, the larger the star’s core is going to be, and the more nuclear fusion can be done at its core. This means that more energy reaches the surface of the star and increases its temperature. There’s a tricky exception to this: red giants. A typical red giant star can have the mass of our Sun, and would have been a white star all of its life. But as it nears the end of its life it increases in luminosity by a factor of 1000, and so it seems abnormally bright. But a blue giant star is just big, massive and hot.

6. Most stars come in multiples

It might look like all the stars are out there, all by themselves, but many come in pairs. These are binary stars, where two stars orbit a common center of gravity. And there are other systems out there with 3, 4 and even more stars. Just think of the beautiful sunrises you’d experience waking up on a world with 4 stars around it.

7. The biggest stars would engulf Saturn

Speaking of red giants, or in this case, red supergiants, there are some monster stars out there that really make our Sun look small. A familiar red supergiant is the star Betelgeuse in the constellation Orion. It has about 20 times the mass of the Sun, but it’s 1,000 times larger. But that’s nothing. The largest known star is the monster VY Canis Majoris. This star is thought to be 1,800 times the size of the Sun; it would engulf the orbit of Saturn!

8. The most massive stars are the shortest lived

I mentioned above that the low mass red dwarf stars can sip away at their fuel for 10 trillion years before finally running out. Well, the opposite is true for the most massive stars that we know about. These giants can have as much as 150 times the mass of the Sun, and put out a ferocious amount of energy. For example, one of the most massive stars we know of is Eta Carinae, located about 8,000 light-years away. This star is thought to have 150 solar masses, and puts out 4 million times as much energy. While our own Sun has been quietly burning away for billions of years, and will keep going for billions more, Eta Carinae has probably only been around for a few million years. And astronomers are expecting Eta Carinae to detonate as a supernovae any time now. When it does go off, it would become the brightest object in the sky after the Sun the Moon. It would be so bright you could see it during the day, and read from it at night.

9. There are many, many stars

Quick, how many stars are there in the Milky Way. You might be surprised to know that there are 200-400 billion stars in our galaxy. Each one is a separate island in space, perhaps with planets, and some may even have life. But then, there could be as many as 500 billion galaxies in the Universe, and each of which could have as many or more stars as the Milky Way. Multiply those two numbers together and you’ll see that there could be as many as 2 x 10²³ stars in the Universe. That’s 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

10. And they’re very far

With so many stars out there, it’s amazing to consider the vast distances involved. The closest star to Earth is Proxima Centauri, located 4.2 light-years away. In other words, it takes light itself more than 4 years to complete the journey from Earth. If you tried to hitch a ride on the fastest spacecraft ever launched from Earth, it would still take you more than 70,000 years to get there from here. Traveling between the stars just isn’t feasible right now.

If you’d like more information on stars, check out Hubblesite’s News Releases about Stars, and here’s the stars and galaxies homepage.

We have recorded several episodes of Astronomy Cast about stars. Here are two that you might find helpful: Episode 12: Where Do Baby Stars Come From, and Episode 13: Where Do Stars Go When they Die?

References:
NASA: How Do Stars Form and Evolve?
NASA: Stars

February 10, 2009December 24, 2015 by Fraser Cain

Giant Stars

VY Canis Majoris. The biggest known star. — Size comparison between the Sun and VY Canis Majoris, which once held the title of the largest known star in the Universe. Credit: Wikipedia Commons/Oona Räisänen

75% of all the stars in the Universe are smaller and less massive than the Sun. Most of the others are similar in size and mass to the Sun, or maybe a little larger. But there are some very rare stars out there that are much larger and more massive than our Sun; these are the giant stars.

Blue Giant Stars
The color of a star depends on its temperature. The coolest stars are red, while the hottest stars are blue. And the temperature of a star depends entirely on its mass. If a star has enough mass, it will have a surface temperature greater than about 10,000 Kelvin and shine with a blue color. The largest and hottest stars in the Universe are these blue giant stars.

A familiar example is the blue giant star Rigel, located in the constellation of Orion, located about 700 to 900 light years away. Rigel contains 17 times the mass of the Sun, and shines with 40,000 times the luminosity of the Sun. This is enough energy for Rigel to light up dust clouds in its vicinity.

An even more extreme example is the blue hypergiant Eta Carinae, located about 8,000 light years away. Eta Carinae is a monster, estimated to have more than 100 times the mass of the Sun. It’s burning fuel at such a tremendous rate that it puts out 4 million times as much energy as the Sun, with a surface temperature of 40,000 Kelvin. Astronomers expect Eta Carinae to detonate as a supernova in a few hundred thousand years.

Blue giant stars are giant because they have many times the mass of the Sun.

Red Giant Stars
On the other end of the spectrum are the red giant stars. While blue is the hottest color of stars, red is the coolest color they can have. A red giant is born when a star like our Sun reaches the end of its life and runs out of hydrogen fuel in its core. This forces the star to begin nuclear fusion with helium, increase in luminosity and bloat up many times its original size. When our Sun becomes a red giant, it will expand to consume the orbits of the inner planets, including Mercury, Venus and Earth.

So, regular stars become regular red giants. But there are even larger red giants out there; the red supergiants. These are massive stars with more than 20 times the mass of the Sun. They enter the red giant phase of stellar evolution, but instead of merely expanding to the orbit of the Earth, they can expand to more than 1,500 times the radius of the Sun. Imagine a star that extended out past the orbit of Saturn.

We have written many articles about stars here on Universe Today. Here’s an article about the biggest star in the Universe, and here’s an article about a planet surviving when its star became a red giant.

If you’d like more information on stars, check out Hubblesite’s News Releases about Stars, and here’s the stars and galaxies homepage.

We have recorded several episodes of Astronomy Cast about stars. Here are two that you might find helpful: Episode 12: Where Do Baby Stars Come From, and Episode 13: Where Do Stars Go When they Die?

References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_giant
http://earthsky.org/brightest-stars/blue-white-rigel-is-orions-brightest-star
http://www.telescope.org/pparc/res8.html

February 10, 2009December 24, 2015 by Anne Minard

Fermi, Swift spy outburst from gamma-ray star

Gamma-rays flares from SGR J1550-5418 may arise when the magnetar's surface suddenly cracks, releasing energy stored within its powerful magnetic field. Credit:NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Conceptual Image Lab

[/caption]

NASA’s Swift satellite and Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope have keyed in on a rowdy stellar remnant 30,000 light-years away. The object, already known as a source of pulsing radio and X-ray signals, lies in the southern constellation Norma. It kicked out some moderate eruptions in October, but then it settled down again. Late last month, it roared to life.

“At times, this remarkable object has erupted with more than a hundred flares in as little as 20 minutes,” said Loredana Vetere, who is coordinating the Swift observations at Pennsylvania State University. “The most intense flares emitted more total energy than the sun does in 20 years.”

The new object has been cataloged as SGR J1550-5418. Because of the recent outbursts, astronomers will classify it as a soft-gamma-ray repeater. Only six such objects are known to science, and they share the trait that they unpredictably send out a series of X-ray and gamma-ray flares. In 2004, a giant flare from another soft-gamma-ray repeater was so intense it measurably affected Earth’s upper atmosphere from 50,000 light-years away.

The source of the wild emissions is probably a spinning neutron star — the superdense, city-sized remains of an exploded star. Measuring only about 12 miles (19 kilometers) across, a neutron star is more massive than the sun.

While neutron stars typically possess intense magnetic fields, a subgroup displays fields 1,000 times stronger. These so-called magnetars have the strongest magnetic fields of any known objects in the universe. SGR J1550-5418, which rotates once every 2.07 seconds, holds the record for the fastest-spinning magnetar. Astronomers think magnetars power their flares by tapping into the tremendous energy of their magnetic fields.

Fermi’s gamma-ray burst monitor is designed to investigate magnetar flares, and SGR J1550-5418 has already triggered the instrument more than 95 times since Jan. 22. Swift’s X-ray telescope captured the first “light echoes” ever seen from a oft-gamma-ray repeater when SGR J1550-5418 started exploding. Both the halo-like rings and their apparent expansion are an illusion caused by the finite speed of light and the longer path the scattered light must travel. NASA’s Wind satellite, the joint NASA-Japan Suzaku mission, and the European Space Agency’s INTEGRAL satellite also have detected flares from SGR J1550-5418.

Swift's X-Ray Telescope (XRT) captured an apparent expanding halo around the flaring neutron star SGR J1550-5418. The halo formed as X-rays from the brightest flares scattered off of intervening dust clouds. Credit: NASA/Swift/Jules Halpern (Columbia Univ.)

Source: NASA

February 10, 2009December 24, 2015 by Fraser Cain

Falling Stars

[/caption]
Falling stars aren’t stars at all, they’re actually tiny pieces of dust impacting the Earth’s atmosphere and burning up. You might also have heard them called “shooting stars”, but their scientific name is “meteors”. Let’s learn some more about falling stars.

Space looks empty, but there’s all kind of stuff out there: gas, dust and tiny rock and ice fragments. The tiny pieces of rock or ice are known as meteoroids. They could have been left over from the formation of the Solar System 4.6 billion years ago. Or maybe they were part of the tail of a comet that was making a near pass to the Sun. Rocks and asteroids can collide with one another in space and generate meteoroid debris. Who knows how long the tiny object was orbiting the Sun until its path finally crossed the Earth.

When a meteoroid strikes the Earth’s atmosphere, it burns up leaving a tiny trail in the sky. This trail is the falling star, or meteor. The size of the trail depends on the speed of the object, the angle it struck the atmosphere at, and the amount of mass that it has. The largest objects can leave a trail across the sky that lasts for a few seconds.

Although you can see falling stars any night of the year, there are certain times when they’re more frequent. These are the times when the Earth orbit takes us through the tail of an ancient comet. We’ll pass through the tail fragments at the same time every year, so a meteor shower is predictable. Some famous meteor showers are the Perseids in August, and the Leonids in November.

So remember, when you’re looking for falling stars, you’re not seeing stars at all, but meteors; tiny chunks of rock and ice impacting the Earth’s atmosphere and burning up.

We have written many articles about stars here on Universe Today. Here’s an article about the Geminid meteor shower, and here’s another about the Quadrantid Meteor Shower.

If you’d like more info on falling stars, check out NASA’s How to See the Best Meteor Showers, and here’s a link to NASA’s Solar System Exploration Guide on Meteors.

We have recorded several episodes of Astronomy Cast about stars. Here are two that you might find helpful: Episode 12: Where Do Baby Stars Come From, and Episode 13: Where Do Stars Go When they Die?

Reference:
NASA

February 10, 2009December 24, 2015 by Fraser Cain

Star Charts

[/caption]
Astronomy is a wonderful hobby that’s incredibly easy to get started with. That’s because all you need is your eyes, some reasonably dark skies and star chart to learn your constellations. Better equipment comes later, of course, when you buy a set of binoculars or a small telescope. But let’s just start with the star chart.

There are some incredible resources for star charts out there. My all time favorite, the one that taught me my constellations, and helped me make my first observations with a telescope is Nightwatch: A Practical Guide to Viewing the Universe, by Terence Dickinson. This is a 192-page spiral bound book that contains detailed charts of the sky for different seasons. You flip it open to the region of the sky that you want to study, find some reference stars and then start exploring.

If you want something a little smaller and more portable, you might consider a planisphere. This is circular wheel with a window cut out of it to show the sky. You rotate the planisphere to your current month, and it shows you the constellations that will be visible in the sky. The problem with a planisphere is that they aren’t very detailed and only show the brightest stars and constellations. Here’s a link to a planisphere that’s good if you live above the 30th parallel. There are others for more southern skies.

Let me guess, you’d like something free that you can just print off from the Internet. No problem, there are plenty of resources out there.

The National Research Council of Canada has an online planisphere that you can customize to your current month to see what’s up in the sky. They also have a printable version that you can make for yourself.

One of my favorite resources is Skymaps.com. Each month they release a new printable sky chart for both the Northern and Southern hemispheres. It also comes with a monthly sky calendar and a great list of objects to see with binoculars, telescopes or just your eyes.

Finally, if you want to get really specific, the TAU Astronomy Club has a monthly sky map for every location on Earth. You enter your latitude and longitude, and the system generates a sky chart specific to your skies. Very handy.

So, you’ve got no excuse. Get a sky chart, head outside and appreciate the wonder of the night skies.

If you’d like more information on stars, check out Hubblesite’s News Releases about Stars, and here’s the stars and galaxies homepage.

We have recorded several episodes of Astronomy Cast about stars. Here are two that you might find helpful: Episode 12: Where Do Baby Stars Come From, and Episode 13: Where Do Stars Go When they Die?

February 10, 2009December 24, 2015 by Anne Minard

ESA extends Mars, Venus, Earth missions

Artist's impression of Mars Express (ESA)

[/caption]

The European Space Agency has extended operations of three missions: Mars Express, Venus Express and Cluster, until the end of the year, citing “excellent” research returns from all three missions. Each mission has been extended at least once in its history, said Monica Talevi, an ESA spokeswoman — but they’re all worth it.

“The scientific community recognizes and ESA recognizes that these missions have provided excellent results,” she said.

Mars Express

The first European mission to the Red Planet, Mars Express has been orbiting Mars since the end of 2003. Besides high-resolution color images of the Martian surface, the spacecraft has also beamed back mineralogical evidence for the presence of liquid water throughout Martian history and studied the density of the Martian crust in detail. Mars Express was the first spacecraft to detect methane in the planet’s atmosphere from orbit. Its radar instrument, the first flown to Mars, has returned pioneering sub-surface sounding measurements that show underground deposits of water ice. The mission has also pioneered insights into the Martian atmosphere, including the detection of aurorae at mid-latitudes and new estimates for the rate at which Mars’ atmosphere escapes into space.

The mission has been extended twice in the past, with the most recent lasting until May 2009. This third extension will make it possible to continue with the mission’s study of the Red Planet which includes, among other inquiries: the study of its subsurface, the observation of the upper atmospheric layers under varying solar conditions, observation of methane in the atmosphere and high resolution mapping of its surface.

Venus Express

Since it reached Venus in April 2006, Venus Express has been mapping Venus’s noxious and thick atmosphere globally and in 3D for the first time. With the data, scientists have put together extensive meteorological maps of Venus, providing measurements of wind fields and temperatures and the chemical composition of the atmosphere.

Venus Express is studying largely unknown phenomena in the Venusian atmosphere like never before. Image by AOES Medialab, courtesy of ESA. — Venus Express is studying largely unknown phenomena in the Venusian atmosphere. Image by AOES Medialab, courtesy of ESA.

The spacecraft has peered at the planet’s dynamic cloud system, including its striking double-eyed atmospheric vortex that dominates the south pole. It’s found water molecules escaping into space, concrete evidence for lightning in the Venusian atmosphere, and infrared glimpses of the hot surface.

Previously extended once to last until May 2009, the next extended phase will be used to improve scientists’ understanding of how Venus’ climate works, and search for suspected active volcanism on the planet’s surface.

Cluster

The Cluster constellation was launched in summer 2000 and started operating in early 2001. Since then, the four-satellite mission has been spying on the Earth’s own magnetosphere, the magnetic bubble surrounding our planet. Its work is yeilding new insights into the way solar activity affects the near-Earth environment.

Cluster pioneered measurements of electric currents in space, revealed the nature of black aurorae, and discovered that plasma — a gas of charged particles surrounding Earth — makes ‘waves.’ The mission also provided the first 3D observation of magnetic reconnection in space — a phenomenon that reconfigures the magnetic field and releases high amounts of energy.

The Cluster mission has been extended twice in the past, up to June 2009. The new extension will make it possible to study the auroral regions above Earth’s poles and widen the investigations of the magnetosphere, particularly its inner region.

Source: ESA

February 10, 2009December 24, 2015 by Fraser Cain

Carbon Stars

Carbon star TT Cygni. Image credit: Stockholme Observatory

[/caption]
Carbon stars are similar to red giant stars. It’s a late stage in the evolution of a star on its way to death. What makes a carbon star different from a regular red giant star is the fact that there’s more carbon than oxygen in its atmosphere. That’s a carbon star. I’m guessing you’re going to need a more complete explanation.

A star shines because it’s fusing elements in its core; usually hydrogen into helium. When a star runs out of fuel at its core, it stops putting out energy, and starts to collapse down. This collapse increases the pressure and temperature at the core, and allows a shell of hydrogen around the core to ignite. The star bursts to life again with thousands of times the luminosity it had before. This increased energy output bloats the star up until it becomes a red giant. When our Sun becomes a red giant, it will engulf the orbits of the inner planets: Mercury, Venus, and yes, even Earth.

Astronomers think there are a couple of ways that stars can gain larger amounts of carbon in their atmospheres. The first is the classical theory of carbon stars. Stars more massive than our Sun will be fusing helium in their cores when they reach a certain point in their lives. The output of these helium fusion reactions is carbon. Convection currents deep within the star carry the carbon upwards to the surface, where it’s deposited in the star’s outer atmosphere.

The second way carbon stars can appear is through a binary system. One star is a red giant, and the other star is a white dwarf. Millions of years ago, both the red giant and the white dwarf were main sequence stars, and during this period one star siphoned material off the other and collected it on its outer atmosphere. Today we see a red giant with an unusually high amount of carbon in its atmosphere.

We have written many articles about stars here on Universe Today. Here’s an article about pure carbon stars discovered, and here’s a theory that carbon stars might detonate as gamma ray bursts.

If you’d like more information on stars, check out Hubblesite’s News Releases about Stars, and here’s the stars and galaxies homepage.

We have recorded several episodes of Astronomy Cast about stars. Here are two that you might find helpful: Episode 12: Where Do Baby Stars Come From, and Episode 13: Where Do Stars Go When they Die?

Reference:
Wikipedia

February 10, 2009April 26, 2016 by Ian O'Neill

The Journey of Space Exploration: Ex-Astronaut Views on NASA

Why has "one small step for man" turned into "one giant leap backward" for NASA? (NASA)

[/caption]It reads like the annual progress report from my first year in university. He lacks direction, he’s not motivated and he has filled his time with extra-curricular activities, causing a lack of concentration in lectures. However, it shouldn’t read like an 18 year-old’s passage through the first year of freedom; it should read like a successful, optimistic and inspirational prediction about NASA’s future in space.

What am I referring to? It turns out that the Houston university where President John F. Kennedy gave his historic “We go to the Moon” speech back in 1962 has commissioned a report, recommending that NASA should give up its quest for returning to the Moon and focus more on environmental and energy projects. The reactions of several astronauts from the Mercury, Apollo and Shuttle eras have now been published. The conclusions in the Rice University report may have been controversial, but the reactions of the six ex-astronauts went well beyond that. They summed up the concern and frustration they feel for a space agency they once risked their lives for.

At the end of the day, it all comes down to how we interpret the importance of space exploration. Is it an unnecessary expense, or is it part of scientific endeavour where the technological spin-offs are more important than we think?

John F. Kennedy speaking at Rice University in 1962. How times have changed (NASA)

The article published in the Houston Chronicle website (Chron.com) talks about the “surprising reactions” by the six former astronauts questioned about Rice University’s James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy recommendation for NASA. However, I’d argue that much of what they say is not surprising in the slightest. These men and women were active in the US space agency during some of the most profound and exciting times in space flight history, it is little wonder that they may be a little exacerbated by the current spaceflight problems that are besieging NASA. The suggestion that NASA should give up the Moon for more terrestrial pursuits is a tough pill to swallow, especially for these pioneers of spaceflight.

It is widely accepted that NASA is underfunded, mismanaged and falling short of its promises. Many would argue that this is a symptom of an old cumbersome government department that has lost its way. This could be down to institutional failings, lack of investment or loss of vision, but the situation is getting worse for NASA. Regardless, something isn’t right and now we are faced with a five year gap in US manned spaceflight capability, forcing NASA to buy Russian Soyuz flights. The Shuttle replacement, the Constellation Program, has even been written off by many before it has even carried out the first test launch.

So, from their unique perspective, what do these retired astronauts think of the situation? It turns out that some agree with the report, others are strongly opposed to it, whereas all voice concern for the future of NASA.

Kathryn Thornton, before a Shuttle mission (NASA)

Walt Cunningham flew aboard Apollo 7 in 1968. It was the first manned mission in the Apollo Program. At an age of 76, Cunningham sees no urgency in going back to the Moon but he is also believes the concerns about global warming are “a great big scam.” His feelings about global warming may be misplaced, but he is acutely aware of the funding issue facing NASA, concerned the agency will “keep sliding downhill” if nothing is done.

Four-time Shuttle astronaut Kathryn Thornton, agrees that the agency is underfunded and overstretched and dubious about the Institute’s recommendation that NASA should focus all its attention on environmental issues for four years. “I find it hard to believe we would be finished with the energy and environment issues in four years. If you talk about a re-direction, I think you talk about a permanent re-direction,” Thornton added.

Gene Cernan, commander of the 1972 Apollo 17 mission, believes that space exploration is essential to inspire the young and invigorate the educational system. He is shocked by the Institute’s recommendation to pull back on space exploration. The 74 year old was the last human to walk on the Moon and he believes NASA shouldn’t be focused on ways to save the planet, other agencies and businesses can do that.

“It just blows my mind what they would do to an organization like NASA that was designed and built to explore the unknown.” — Gene Cernan

Apollo astronaut Gene Cernan covered with moon dust (NASA) — Apollo astronaut Gene Cernan covered with moondust (NASA)

John Glenn, first US astronaut to orbit the Earth and former senator, is appalled at the suggestion of abandoning projects such as the International Space Station. Although Glenn, now 87, agrees with many of the points argued in the report, he said, “We have a $115 billion investment in the most unique laboratory ever put together, and we are cutting out the ability to do research that may have enormous value to everybody right here on the Earth? This is folly.”

Sally Ride, 57, a physicist and the first American woman to fly into space believes the risky option of extending the life of the Shuttle should be considered to allow US manned access to the space station to continue. The greater risk of being frozen out of the outpost simply is not an option. However, she advocates the report’s suggestion that NASA should also focus on finding solutions to climate change. “It will take us awhile to dig ourselves out,” she said. “But the long-term challenge we have is solving the predicament we have put ourselves in with energy and the environment.”

Franklin Chang Diaz, who shares world’s record for the most spaceflights (seven), believes that NASA has been given a very bad deal. He agrees with many of the report’s recommendations, not because the space agency should turn its back on space exploration, it’s because the agency has been put in an impossible situation.

“NASA has moved away from being at the edge of high tech and innovation,” said Chang Diaz. “That’s a predicament NASA has found itself in because it had to carry out a mission to return humans to the moon by a certain time (2020) and within a budget ($17.3 billion for 2008). It’s not possible.”

In Conclusion

This discussion reminds me of a recent debate not about space exploration, but another science and engineering endeavour here on Earth. The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has its critics who will argue that this $5 billion piece of kit is not worth the effort, where the money spent on accelerating particles could be better spent on finding solutions for climate change, or a cure for cancer.

You did NOT just say that! Brian Cox's expression says it all... (still from the BBC's Newsnight program)

In a September 2008 UK televised debate on BBC Newsnight between Sir David King (former Chief Scientific Advisor for the UK government) and particle physicist Professor Brian Cox, King questioned the the importance of the science behind the LHC. By his limited reasoning, the LHC was more “navel-searching”, “curiosity-driven” research with little bearing on the advancement of mankind. In King’s view the money would be better spent on finding solutions to known problems, such as climate change. It is fortunate Brian Cox was there to set the records straight.

Prof. Cox explained that the science behind the LHC is “part of a journey” where the technological spin-offs and the knowledge gained from such a complex experiment cannot be predicted before embarking on scientific endeavour. Indeed, advanced medical technologies are being developed as a result of LHC research; the Internet may be revolutionized by new techniques being derived from work at the LHC; even the cooling system for the LHC accelerator electromagnets can be adapted for use in fusion reactors.

The point is that we may never fully comprehend what technologies, science or knowledge we may gain from huge experiments such as the LHC, and we certainly don’t know what spin-offs we can derive from continued advancement of space travel technology. Space exploration can only enhance our knowledge and scientific understanding.

If NASA starts pulling back on endeavours in space, taking a more introverted view of finding specific solutions to particular problems (such as finding a solution to climate change at the detriment to space exploration, as suggested by the Rice University report), we may never fully realise our potential as a race, and many of the problems here on Earth will never be solved…

Sources: Chron.com, Astroengine.com