All 9 Merlin 1D first stage engines firing beautifully as SpaceX Falcon 9 arcs over down range successfully carrying Inmarsat 5F4 #I5F4 to geostationary transfer orbit at twilight after liftoff from Launch Complex 39A on 15 May 2017 from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Credit: Ken Kremer/Kenkremer.com
All 9 Merlin 1D first stage engines firing beautifully as SpaceX Falcon 9 arcs over down range successfully carrying Inmarsat 5F4 #I5F4 to geostationary transfer orbit at twilight after liftoff from Launch Complex 39A on 15 May 2017 from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Credit: Ken Kremer/Kenkremer.com
“This has obviously been an absolutely exceptional performance from SpaceX, Inmarsat CEO Rupert Pearce told Universe Today in a post launch interview at the Kennedy Space Center on Monday, May 15.
“They have now earned themselves an immensely loyal customer.”
SpaceX is the first and thus far only company in history to successfully recover and refly a previously flown orbit class ‘flight-proven’ liquid fueled first stage rocket – during the SES-10 launch in March 2017.
“They hit the ball out of the park with this launch for us,” Inmarsat CEO Pearce told me regarding the new space company founded by billionaire CEO Elon Musk.
The never before used 229-foot-tall (70-meter) SpaceX Falcon 9 successfully delivered the gigantic bus sized 6100 kg Inmarsat-5 F4 satellite to a Geostationary Transfer Orbit (GTO) under brilliant blue and nearly cloudless twilight skies from the Florida Space Coast. Read my launch report here.
The first stage is powered by nine Merlin 1 D engines fueled by RP-1 and liquid oxygen propellants and generating 1.7 million pounds.
SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket carrying commercial Inmarsat 5 F4 broadband satellite blasts off to geostationary orbit at twilight at 7:20 p.m. EDT from Launch Complex 39A on 15 May 2017 from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Credit: Ken Kremer/Kenkremer.com
The Inmarsat-5 F4 satellite is designed to provide high speed broad band service to government, military, maritime and aviation users and ship and airplane customers numbering in the millions to tens of millions of customers now and potentially hundreds of millions of customers in the future. It was the heaviest payload ever launched by a Falcon 9.
Pearce says he “has every confidence in SpaceX.”
Inmarsat is a leading provider of mobile satellite communications, providing global connectivity more than 35 years – on land, at sea and in the air, says the firm.
I asked CEO Pearce; What does the future hold regarding further Inmarsat launches with SpaceX?
“They [SpaceX] have now just gained and earned themselves an immensely loyal customer [from Inmarsat], CEO Pearce replied.
“We will be looking to do further launches with them.”
The 7 meter long Inmarsat-5 F4 satellite was deployed approximately 32 minutes after Monday’s launch when it will come under the command of the Boeing and Inmarsat satellite operations teams based at the Boeing facility in El Segundo.
Would you consider a used rocket, a previously flown booster?
“I’m sure we will be using a ‘reused rocket’, Pearce stated. “And we will be launching on a ‘reusable rocket’ in the future.”
“We will be looking to support them in any way we can with their new innovation programs.”
Blastoff of SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket at 7:20 p.m. EDT from Launch Complex 39A on 15 May 2017 from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida which successfully delivered Inmarsat-5 F4 broadband satellite to orbit. Credit: Julian Leek
In contrast to virtually all Falcon 9 launches in the past 18 months, no attempt was made to recover the first stage booster.
For this launch there was basically no choice but to make the first stage ‘expendable’ because Inmarsat-5 F4 is heaviest ever payload launched on a Falcon 9.
The satellites heavy weight with a launch mass of approx. 6,100 kg (13,400 lbs) means the rocket needs all its thrust to get the satellite to orbit and thus precludes the chance to land the first stage at sea or land.
Thus there are no landing legs or grid gins attached to the skin of this Falcon 9.
“This rocket that went today was not reusable. That was just a creature of its time,” Pearce elaborated.
“We will stay at the cutting edge with SpaceX!”
To date, SpaceX has successfully recovered 10 first stage boosters either by land or by sea on an ocean going platform.
Inmarsat CEO Rupert Pierce during post launch interview with Ken Kremer/Universe Today discusses SpaceX Falcon 9 launch carrying commercial Inmarsat 5 F4 broadband satellite to geostationary orbit after liftoff at 7:20 p.m. EDT from Launch Complex 39A on 15 May 2017 from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Credit: Ken Kremer/Kenkremer.com
The Inmarsat-5 F4 (I-5 F4) will become part of the firms Global Xpress network “which has been delivering seamless, high-speed broadband connectivity across the world since December 2015,” says Inmarsat.
“Once in geostationary orbit, the satellite will provide additional capacity for Global Xpress users on land, at sea and in the air.”
SpaceX Falcon 9 deploys quartet of landing legs moments before precision propulsive ground touchdown at Landing Zone 1 on Canaveral Air Force Station barely nine minutes after liftoff from Launch Complex 39A on 1 May 2017 from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Credit: Ken Kremer/Kenkremer.com
I-5 F4 was built by Boeing at their satellite operations facility in El Segundo, CA for Inmarsat.
The new satellite will join 3 others already in orbit.
Inmarsat has invested approximately US$1.6 billion in the Global Xpress constellation “to establish the first ever global Ka-band service from a single network operator.”
SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket carrying commercial Inmarsat 5 F4 broadband satellite accelerates to orbit leaving exhaust trail in its wake after twilight launch at 7:20 p.m. EDT from Launch Complex 39A on 15 May 2017 from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Credit: Ken Kremer/Kenkremer.com
Inmarsat 5 F4 counts as the sixth SpaceX launch of 2017.
And SpaceX is on an absolutely torrid launch pace. Monday’s liftoff comes just 2 weeks after the last successful SpaceX Falcon 9 liftoff on May 1 of the super secret NROL-76 payload for the National Reconnaissance Office, or NRO – as I reported here.
Watch for Ken’s continuing onsite launch reports direct from the Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida.
Stay tuned here for Ken’s continuing Earth and Planetary science and human spaceflight news.
SpaceX Falcon 9 Inmarsat-5 F4 (I-5 F4) mission artwork. Credit: SpaceX/InmarsatInmarsat-5 Flight 4 (I-5 F4) satellite undergoes prelaunch processing for liftoff on SpaceX Falcon 9. Credit: InmarsatSpaceX Falcon 9 rocket carrying commercial Inmarsat 5 F4 broadband satellite blasts off to geostationary orbit at twilight at 7:20 p.m. EDT from Launch Complex 39A on 15 May 2017 from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Credit: Ken Kremer/Kenkremer.com
When an asteroid struck the Yucatan region about 66 million years ago, it triggered the extinction of the dinosaurs. ESA's Hera mission is visiting the smallest spacerock ever as part of our effort to not get creamed by an asteroid. Credit: NASA/Don Davis
The asteroid that struck Earth about 66 million years ago and led to the mass extinction of dinosaurs may have hit one of the worst places possible as far as life on Earth was concerned. When it struck, the resulting cataclysm choked the atmosphere with sulphur, which blocked out the Sun. Without the Sun, the food chain collapsed, and it was bye-bye dinosaurs, and bye-bye most of the other life on Earth, too.
But, as it turns out, if it had struck a few moments earlier or later, it would not have hit the Yucatan, and things may have turned out differently. Why? Because of the concentration of the mineral gypsum in that area.
The place where the asteroid hit Earth is called the Chicxulub Crater, and scientists have been studying that area to try to learn more about the impact event that altered the course of life on Earth. An upcoming BBC documentary called “The Day The Dinosaurs Died,” focuses on what happened when the asteroid struck. Drill-core samples from the Yucatan area help explain the events that followed the impact.
The drilling rig off the coast of the Yucatan. The rig was there in the Spring of 2016 obtaining samples from the seafloor. Image: BBC/Barcroft Productions.
The core samples, which are from as deep as 1300 m beneath the Gulf of Mexico, are from a feature called the peak ring.
When the asteroid struck Earth, it excavated a crater 100 km across and 30 km deep. This crater collapsed into a wider but shallower crater 200 km across and a few km deep. Then the center of the crater rebounded, and collapsed again, leaving the peak ring feature. The Chicxulub crater is now partly under water, and that’s where a drilling rig was set up to take samples.
The peak ring is at the center of the crater, offshore of the Yucatan Peninsula. Image: NASA/BBC
The core samples revealed rock that has been heavily fractured and altered by immense pressures. The same impact that altered those rocks would have generated an enormous amount of heat, and that heat created an enormous cloud of sulphur from the vaporized gypsum. That cloud persisted, which led to a global winter. Temperatures dropped, plant growth came to a standstill, and the course of events on Earth were altered forever.
“Had the asteroid struck a few moments earlier or later, rather than hitting shallow coastal waters it might have hit deep ocean,” documentary co-presenter Ben Garrod told the BBC.
“This is where we get to the great irony of the story – because in the end it wasn’t the size of the asteroid, the scale of blast, or even its global reach that made dinosaurs extinct – it was where the impact happened,” said Ben Garrod, who presents “The Day The Dinosaurs Died” with Alice Roberts.
“An impact in the nearby Atlantic or Pacific oceans would have meant much less vaporised rock – including the deadly gypsum. The cloud would have been less dense and sunlight could still have reached the planet’s surface, meaning what happened next might have been avoided,” said Garrod.
In the documentary, host Alice Roberts will also visit a quarry in New Jersey, where fossil evidence shows a massive die-off in a very short period of time. In fact, these creatures could have died on the very day that the asteroid struck.
The core samples from the drilling rig show rocks that were subjected to immense heat and pressure at the time of the impact. Image: Barcroft Productions/BBC
“All these fossils occur in a layer no more than 10cm thick,” palaeontologist Ken Lacovara tells Alice. “They died suddenly and were buried quickly. It tells us this is a moment in geological time. That’s days, weeks, maybe months. But this is not thousands of years; it’s not hundreds of thousands of years. This is essentially an instantaneous event.”
There’s lots of evidence showing that an asteroid struck Earth about 66 million years ago, causing widespread extinction. NASA satellite images clearly show crater features, now obscured by 66 million years of geological activity, but still visible.
There’s also what’s called the K-T Boundary, or Cretaceous-Tertiary Boundary. It’s a geological signature dating to 66 million years ago, which marks the end of the Cretaceous Period. In that boundary is a layer of iridium at very high concentrations, much higher than is normally present in the Earth’s crust. Since iridium is much more abundant in asteroids, the conclusion is that it was probably deposited by an asteroid.
But this is the first evidence that shows how critical the actual location of the event may have been. If it had not struck where it had, dinosaurs may never have gone extinct, you and I would not be here, and things on Earth could look much different.
It might sound like the stuff of science fiction, but who knows? Maybe a race of intelligent lizards might already have mastered interstellar travel.
Comet V2 Johnson from February 21st, 2017. Image credit and copyright: John Purvis
Comet V2 Johnson from February 21st, 2017. Image credit and copyright: John Purvis
Had your fill of binocular comets? Turns out, 2017 may have saved the best for last. The past few months has seen a steady stream of dirty snowball visitations to the inner solar system, both short term periodic and long term hyperbolic. First, let’s run through the cometary roll call for the first part of the year: There’s 41P Tuttle-Giacobini-Kresák, 2P/Encke, 45P Honda-Markov-Padjudašáková, C/2015 ER61 PanSTARRS and finally, the latecomer to the party, C/2017 E4 Lovejoy.
Next up is a comet with a much easier to pronounce (and type) name, at least to the English-speaking tongue: C/2015 V2 Johnson.
It would seem that we’re getting a year’s worth of binocular comets right up front in the very first half.
Discovered by the Catalina Sky Survey by astronomer Jess Johnson on the night of November 3rd 2015 while it was still 6.17 astronomical units (AU) distant at +17th magnitude, Comet V2 Johnson is currently well-placed for mid-latitude northern hemisphere viewers after dusk. Currently shining at magnitude +8 as it glides through the umlaut-adorned constellation Boötes the Herdsman, Comet V2 Johnson is expected to top out at magnitude +6 in late June, post-perihelion.
The path of Comet C/2015 V2 Johnson through the inner solar system. Credit: NASA/JPL
Part of what’s making Comet V2 Johnson favorable is its orbit. With a high inclination of 50 degrees relative to the ecliptic, it’s headed down through high northern declinations for a perihelion just outside of Mars’ orbit on June 12th. Though Mars is on the opposite side of the Sun this summer, we’re luckily on the correct side of the Sun to enjoy the cometary view. Comet V2 Johnson passed opposition a few weeks ago on April 28th, and will become an exclusively southern hemisphere object in late July as it continues the plunge southward.
This is likely Comet V2 Johnson’s first and only journey through the inner solar system, as it’s on an open ended, hyperbolic orbit and is likely slated to be ejected from the solar system after its brief summer fling with the Sun.
This week sees Comet V2 Johnson 40 degrees above the eastern horizon in Boötes as seen from latitude 30 degrees north, one hour after sunset. The view reaches its climax on June 6th near the comet’s closest approach to the Earth, with a maximum elevation of 63 degrees from latitude 30 degrees north, one hour after sunset.
The path of Comet V2 Johnson as seen from latitude 30 degrees north, 45 minutes after sunset from mid-May to late June. The constellation positions are for the beginning date. Credit: Starry Night Edu. software.
The comet also sits just 5 degrees from the bright -0.05 magnitude star Arcturus on June 6th, providing a good guidepost to find the fuzzball comet. July sees the comet cross the ecliptic plane through Virgo, then head southward through Hydra and Centaurus. Another interesting pass occurs on the night of July 3rd, when the Moon just misses occulting the comet.
Comet V2 Johnson’s celestial path through August 1st. Credit: Starry Night Edu. Software.
Here are some key dates with destiny for Comet V2 Johnson through August 1st. Unless otherwise noted, all passes are less than one degree (two Full Moon diameters) away:
May 19th: passes near +3.4 magnitude Delta Bootis.
June 5th: Closest approach to the Earth at 0.812 AU distant.
June 12th: Perihelion 1.64 AU from the Sun.
June 15th: Crosses into the constellation Virgo.
June 21st: Crosses the celestial equator southward.
June 26th: Passes near the +4 magnitude star Syrma.
July 1st: Passes near (30″!) the +4.2 magnitude star Kappa Virginis
July 3rd: The waning gibbous Moon passes two degrees north of the comet.
Comet V2 Johnson vs Kappa Virginis and the Moon on July 3rd. Note: the graphic is a (very) idealized version of the comet! Credit: Starry Night Edu.
July 5th: Crosses the ecliptic southward.
July 17th: Crosses into the constellation Hydra.
July 22nd: Passes 2.5 degrees from the +3.3 magnitude star Pi Hydrae.
July 28th: Crosses into the constellation Centaurus.
The projected light curve for Comet C/2015 V2 Johnson. The purple vertical line marks perihelion, and the black dots are actual brightness observations to date. Image credit: adapted from Seiichi Yoshida’s Weekly information About Bright Comets.
Binoculars and a good finder chart are your friends hunting down a comet like V2 Johnson. We like to start our search from a nearby bright star, then slowly sweep the field with our trusty Canon 15×45 image-stabilized binoculars (hard to believe, we’ve had this amazing piece of astro-tech in our observing arsenal for nearly two decades now. They’re so handy, picking up a pair of “old-tech” none stabilized binocs feels weird now!). An +8th magnitude comet will look like a fuzzy globular cluster which stubbornly refuses to resolve when focused. A wide-field DSLR shot should also tease V2 Johnson out of the background.
Comet V2 Johnson from May 3rd. Image credit and copyright: Hisayoshi Kato.
The next week is also ideal for evening comet-hunting for another reason, as the New Moon (also marking the start of the Islamic month of Ramadan) occurs on May 25th, after which, the light-polluting Moon will begin to hamper evening observations.
It’s strange to think, there are no bright comets on tap for the remainder of 2017 after V2 Johnson, though that will likely change as the year wears on.
In the meantime, be sure to check out Comet V2 Johnson, as it makes its lonesome solitary passage through the inner solar system.
Artist's depiction with cutaway section of the two giant donuts of radiation, called the Van Allen Belts, that surround Earth. Credit: NASA
Human beings have known for quite some time that our behavior has a significant influence on our planet. In fact, during the 20th century, humanity’s impact on the natural environment and climate has become so profound that some geologists began to refer to the modern era as the “Anthropocene”. In this age, human agency is the most deterministic force on the planet.
But according to a comprehensive new study by an Anglo-American team of researchers, human beings might be shaping the near-space environment as well. According to the study, radio communications, EM radiation from nuclear testing and other human actions have led to the creation of a barrier around Earth that is shielding it against high-energy space radiation.
The study, which was published in the journal Space Science Reviews under the title “Anthropogenic Space Weather“, was conducted by a team of scientists from the US and Imperial College, London. Led by Dr. Tamas Gombosi, a professor at the University of Michigan and the director at the Center for Space Modelling, the team reviewed the impact anthropogenic processes have on Earth’s near-space environment.
These processes include VLF and radio-frequency (RF) radio communications, which began in earnest during the 19th century and grew considerably during the 20th century. Things became more intense during the 1960s when the United States and the Soviet Union began conducting high-altitude nuclear tests, which resulted in massive electromagnetic pulses (EMP) in Earth’s atmosphere.
To top it off, the creation of large-scale power grids has also had an impact on the near-space environment. As they state in their study:
“The permanent existence, and growth, of power grids and of VLF transmitters around the globe means that it is unlikely that Earth’s present-day space environment is entirely “natural” – that is, that the environment today is the environment that existed at the onset of the 19th century. This can be concluded even though there continue to exist major uncertainties as to the nature of the physical processes that operate under the influence of both the natural environment and the anthropogenically-produced waves.”
The existence of radiation belts (or “toroids”) around Earth has been a well-known fact since the late 1950s. These belts were found to be the result of charged particles coming from the Sun (i.e. “solar wind”) that were captured by and held around Earth by it’s magnetic field. They were named Van Allen Radiation Belts after their discover, the American space scientist James Van Allen.
The twin Radiation Belt Storm Probes, later renamed the Van Allen Probes. Credit: NASA/JHUAPL
The extent of these belts, their energy distribution and particle makeup has been the subject of multiple space missions since then. Similarly, studies began to be mounted around the same time to discover how human-generated charged particles, which would interact with Earth’s magnetic fields once they reached near-space, could contribute to artificial radiation belts.
However, it has been with the deployment of orbital missions like the Van Allen Probes (formerly the Radiation Belt Storm Probes) that scientists have been truly able to study these belts. In addition to the aforementioned Van Allen Belts, they have also taken note of the VLF bubble that radio transmissions have surrounded Earth with. As Phil Erickson, the assistant director at the MIT Haystack Observatory, said in a NASA press release:
“A number of experiments and observations have figured out that, under the right conditions, radio communications signals in the VLF frequency range can in fact affect the properties of the high-energy radiation environment around the Earth.”
One thing that the probes have noticed was the interesting way that the outward extent of the VLF bubble corresponds almost exactly to the inner and outer Van Allen radiation belts. What’s more, comparisons between the modern extent of the radiations belts from the Van Allen Probe data shows that the inner boundary is much farther away than it appeared to be during the 1960s (when VLF transmissions were lower).
Two giant belts of radiation surround Earth. The inner belt is dominated by protons and the outer one by electrons. Credit: NASA
What this could mean is that the VLF bubble we humans have been creating for over a century and half has been removing excess radiation from the near-Earth environment. This could be good news for us, since the effects of charged particles on electronics and human health is well-documented. And during periods of intense space weather – aka. solar flares – the effects can be downright devastating.
Given the opportunity for further study, we may find ways to predictably and reliably use VLF transmissions to make the near-Earth environment more human and electronics-friendly. And with companies like SpaceX planning on bringing internet access to the world through broadband internet-providing satellites, and even larger plans for the commercialization of Near-Earth Orbit, anything that can mitigate the risk posed by radiation is welcome.
And be sure to check this video that illustrates the Van Allen Probes findings, courtesy of NASA:
Artist's rendition of the Dawn mission on approach to the protoplanet Ceres. Credit: NASA/JPL
The Dawn probe continues to excite and amaze! Since it achieved orbit around Ceres in March of 2015, it has been sending back an impressive stream of data and images on the protoplanet. In addition to capturing pictures of the mysterious “bright spots” on Ceres’ surface, it has also revealed evidence of cryovolcanism and the possibility of an interior ocean that could even support life.
Most recently, the Dawn probe conducted observations of the protoplanet while it was at opposition – directly between the Sun and Ceres surface – on April 29th. From this position, the craft was able to capture pictures of the Occator Crater, which contains the brightest spot on Ceres. These images were then stitched together by members of the mission team in order to create a short movie that showcases the view Dawn had of the planet.
The images were snapped when the Dawn probe was at an altitude of about 20,000 km (12,000 mi) from Ceres’ surface. As you can see (by clicking on the image below), the short movie shows the protoplanet rotating so that the Occator Crater is featured prominently. This crater is unmistakable thanks to the way its bright spots (two side by side white dots) stand out from the bland, grey landscape.
NASA movie made of images taken by NASA’s Dawn spacecraft, from a position exactly between the sun and Ceres’ surface. Credits: NASA/JPL-Caltech/UCLA/MPS/DLR/IDA
This increase in brightness is attributable to the size of grains of material on the surface, as well as their degree of porosity. As scientists have known for some time (thanks to the Dawn mission data) these bright spots are salt deposits, which stand out because they are more reflective than their surrounding environment. But for the sake of movie, this contrast was enhanced further in order to highlight the difference.
The observations were conducted as part of the latest phase of the Dawn mission, where it is recording cosmic rays in order to refine its earlier measurements of Ceres’ underground environment. In order to conduct these readings, the probe has been placed through an intricate set of maneuvers designed to shift its orbit around Ceres. Towards the end of April, this placed the probe in a position directly between the Sun and Ceres.
Based on previous data collected by ground-based telescopes and spacecraft that have viewed planetary bodies at opposition, the Dawn team predicted that Ceres would appear brighter from this vantage point. But rather than simply providing for some beautiful images of Ceres’ surface, the pictures are expected to reveal new details of the surface that are not discernible by visual inspection.
A view of Ceres in natural colour, pictured by the Dawn spacecraft in May 2015. Credit: NASA/JPL/Planetary Society/Justin Cowart
For more than two years now, the Dawn probe has been observing Ceres from a range of illumination angles that exceed those made of just about any other body in the Solar System. These has provided scientists with the opportunity to gain new insights into its surface features, properties, and the forces which shape it. Such observations will come in very handy as they continue to probe Ceres’ surface for hints of what lies beneath.
For years, scientists have been of the opinion that Ceres’ harbors an interior ocean that could support life. In fact, the Dawn probe has already gathered spectral data that hinted at the presence of organic molecules on the surface, which were reasoned to have been kicked up when a meteor impacted the surface. Characterizing the surface and subsurface environments will help determine if this astronomical body really could support life.
At present, the Dawn probe is maintaining an elliptical orbit that is taking it farther away from Ceres. As of May 11th, NASA reported that the probe was in good health and functioning well, despite the malfunction that took place in April where it’s third reaction wheel failed. The Dawn mission has already been extended, and it is expected to operate around Ceres until 2017.
Artist’s impression of Proxima b, which was discovered using the Radial Velocity method. Credit: ESO/M. Kornmesser
The extra-solar planet known as Proxima b has occupied a special place in the public mind ever since its existence was announced in August of 2016. As the closest exoplanet to our Solar System, its discovery has raised questions about the possibility of exploring it in the not-too-distant future. And even more tantalizing are the questions relating to its potential habitability.
Despite numerous studies that have attempted to indicate whether the planet could be suitable for life as we know it, nothing definitive has been produced. Fortunately, a team of astrophysics from the University of Exeter – with the help of meteorology experts from the UK’s Met Office – have taken the first tentative steps towards determining if Proxima b has a habitable climate.
According to their study, which appeared recently in the journal Astronomy & Astrophysics, the team conducted a series of simulations using the state-of-the-art Met Office Unified Model (UM). This numerical model has been used for decades to study Earth’s atmosphere, with applications ranging from weather prediction to the effects of climate change.
Artist’s impression of the surface of the planet Proxima b orbiting the red dwarf star Proxima Centauri. The double star Alpha Centauri AB is visible to the upper right of Proxima itself. Credit: ESO
With this model, the team simulated what the climate of Proxima b would be like if it had a similar atmospheric composition to Earth. They also conducted simulations on what the planet would be like it if had a much simpler atmosphere – one composed of nitrogen with trace amounts of carbon dioxide. Last, but not least, they made allowances for variations in the planet’s orbit.
For instance, given the planet’s distance from its sun – 0.05 AU (7.5 million km; 4.66 million mi) – there have been questions about the planet’s orbital characteristics. On the one hand, it could be tidally-locked, where one face is constantly facing towards Proxima Centauri. On the other, the planet could be in a 3:2 orbital resonance with its sun, where it rotates three times on its axis for every two orbits (much like Mercury experiences with our Sun).
In either case, this would result in one side of the planet being exposed to quite a bit of radiation. Given the nature of M-type red dwarf stars, which are highly variable and unstable compared to other types of stars, the sun-facing side would be periodically irradiated. Also, in both orbital scenarios, the planet would be subject to significant variations in temperature that would make it difficult for liquid water to exist.
For example, on a tidally-locked planet, the main atmospheric gases on the night-facing side would be likely to freeze, which would leave the daylight zone exposed and dry. And on a planet with a 3:2 orbital resonance, a single solar day would most likely last a very long time (a solar day on Mercury lasts 176 Earth days), causing one side to become too hot and dry the other side too cold and dry.
This infographic compares the orbit of the planet around Proxima Centauri (Proxima b) with the same region of the Solar System. Credit: ESO
By taking all this into account, the team’s simulations allowed for some crucial comparisons with previous studies, but also allowed the team to reach beyond them. As Dr. Ian Boutle, an Honorary University Fellow at the University of Exeter and the lead author of the paper, explained in a University press release:
“Our research team looked at a number of different scenarios for the planet’s likely orbital configuration using a set of simulations. As well as examining how the climate would behave if the planet was ‘tidally-locked’ (where one day is the same length as one year), we also looked at how an orbit similar to Mercury, which rotates three times on its axis for every two orbits around the sun (a 3:2 resonance), would affect the environment.”
In the end, the results were quite favorable, as the team found that Proxima b would have a remarkably stable climate with either atmosphere and in either orbital configuration. Essentially, the UM software simulations showed that when both atmospheres and both the tidally-locked and 3:2 resonance configurations were accounted for, there would still be regions on the planet where water was able to exist in liquid form.
Naturally, the 3:2 resonance example resulted in more substantial areas of the planet falling within this temperature range. They also found that an eccentric orbit, where the distance between the planet and Proxima Centauri varied to a significant degree over the course of a single orbital period, would lead to a further increase in potential habitability.
Artist’s depiction of a watery exoplanet orbiting a distant red dwarf star. New research indicates that Proxima b could be especially watery. Credit: CfA
As Dr James Manners, another Honorary University Fellow and one of the co-authors on the paper, said:
“One of the main features that distinguishes this planet from Earth is that the light from its star is mostly in the near infra-red. These frequencies of light interact much more strongly with water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which affects the climate that emerges in our model.”
Of course, much more work needs be done before we can truly understand whether this planet is capable of supporting life as we know it. Beyond feeding the hopes of those who would like to see it colonized someday, studies into Proxima b’s conditions are also of extreme importance in determining whether or not indigenous life exists there right now.
But in the meantime, studies such as this are extremely helpful when it comes to anticipating what kinds of environments we might find on distant planets. Dr Nathan Mayne – the scientific lead on exoplanet modelling at the University of Exeter and a co-author on the paper – also indicated that climate studies of this kind could have applications for scientists here at home.
“With the project we have at Exeter we are trying to not only understand the somewhat bewildering diversity of exoplanets being discovered, but also exploit this to hopefully improve our understanding of how our own climate has and will evolve,” he said. What’s more, it helps to illustrate how conditions here on Earth can be used to predict what may exist in extra-solar environments.
While that might sound a bit Earth-centric, it is entirely reasonable to assume that planets in other star systems are subject to processes and mechanics similar to what we’ve seen on the Solar planets. And this is something we are invariably forced to do when it comes to searching for habitable planets and life beyond our Solar System. Until we can go there directly, we will be forced to measure what we don’t know by what we do.
A new study from researchers from the University of British Columbia offers a new explanation of Dark Energy. Credit: NASA
Since the late 1920s, astronomers have been aware of the fact that the Universe is in a state of expansion. Initially predicted by Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity, this realization has gone on to inform the most widely-accepted cosmological model – the Big Bang Theory. However, things became somewhat confusing during the 1990s, when improved observations showed that the Universe’s rate of expansion has been accelerating for billions of years.
This led to the theory of Dark Energy, a mysterious invisible force that is driving the expansion of the cosmos. Much like Dark Matter which explained the “missing mass”, it then became necessary to find this elusive energy, or at least provide a coherent theoretical framework for it. A new study from the University of British Columbia (UBC) seeks to do just that by postulating the Universe is expanding due to fluctuations in space and time.
The study – which was recently published in the journal Physical Review D – was led by Qingdi Wang, a PhD student with the Department of Physics and Astronomy at UBC. Under the supervisions of UBC Professor William Unruh (the man who proposed the Unruh Effect) and with assistance from Zhen Zhu (another PhD student at UBC), they provide a new take on Dark Energy.
Diagram showing the Lambda-CBR universe, from the Big Bang to the the current era. Credit: Alex Mittelmann/Coldcreation
The team began by addressing the inconsistencies arising out of the two main theories that together explain all natural phenomena in the Universe. These theories are none other than General Relativity and quantum mechanics, which effectively explain how the Universe behaves on the largest of scales (i.e. stars, galaxies, clusters) and the smallest (subatomic particles).
Unfortunately, these two theories are not consistent when it comes to a little matter known as gravity, which scientists are still unable to explain in terms of quantum mechanics. The existence of Dark Energy and the expansion of the Universe are another point of disagreement. For starters, candidates theories like vacuum energy – which is one of the most popular explanations for Dark Energy – present serious incongruities.
According to quantum mechanics, vacuum energy would have an incredibly large energy density to it. But if this is true, then General Relativity predicts that this energy would have an incredibly strong gravitational effect, one which would be powerful enough to cause the Universe to explode in size. As Prof. Unruh shared with Universe Today via email:
“The problem is that any naive calculation of the vacuum energy gives huge values. If one assumes that there is some sort of cutoff so one cannot get energy densities much greater than the Planck energy density (or about 1095 Joules/meter³) then one finds that one gets a Hubble constant – the time scale on which the Universe roughly doubles in size – of the order of 10-44 sec. So, the usual approach is to say that somehow something reduces that down so that one gets the actual expansion rate of about 10 billion years instead. But that ‘somehow’ is pretty mysterious and no one has come up with an even half convincing mechanism.”
Timeline of the Big Bang and the expansion of the Universe. Credit: NASA
Whereas other scientists have sought to modify the theories of General Relativity and quantum mechanics in order to resolve these inconsistencies, Wang and his colleagues sought a different approach. As Wang explained to Universe Today via email:
“Previous studies are either trying to modify quantum mechanics in some way to make vacuum energy small or trying to modify General Relativity in some way to make gravity numb for vacuum energy. However, quantum mechanics and General Relativity are the two most successful theories that explain how our Universe works…Instead of trying to modify quantum mechanics or General Relativity, we believe that we should first understand them better. We takes the large vacuum energy density predicted by quantum mechanics seriously and just let them gravitate according to General Relativity without modifying either of them.”
For the sake of their study, Wang and his colleagues performed new sets of calculations on vacuum energy that took its predicted high energy density into account. They then considered the possibility that on the tiniest of scales – billions of times smaller than electrons – the fabric of spacetime is subject to wild fluctuations, oscillating at every point between expansion and contraction.
Could fluctuations at the tiniest levels of space time explain Dark Energy and the expansion of the cosmos? Credit: University of Washington
As it swings back and forth, the result of these oscillations is a net effect where the Universe expands slowly, but at an accelerating rate. After performing their calculations, they noted that such an explanation was consistent with both the existence of quantum vacuum energy density and General Relativity. On top of that, it is also consistent with what scientists have been observing in our Universe for almost a century. As Unruh described it:
“Our calculations showed that one could consistently regard [that] the Universe on the tiniest scales is actually expanding and contracting at an absurdly fast rate; but that on a large scale, because of an averaging over those tiny scales, physics would not notice that ‘quantum foam’. It has a tiny residual effect in giving an effective cosmological constant (dark energy type effect). In some ways it is like waves on the ocean which travel as if the ocean were perfectly smooth but really we know that there is this incredible dance of the atoms that make up the water, and waves average over those fluctuations, and act as if the surface was smooth.”
In contrast to conflicting theories of a Universe where the various forces that govern it cannot be resolved and must cancel each other out, Wang and his colleagues presents a picture where the Universe is constantly in motion. In this scenario, the effects of vacuum energy are actually self-cancelling, and also give rise to the expansion and acceleration we have been observing all this time.
While it may be too soon to tell, this image of a Universe that is highly-dynamic (even on the tiniest scales) could revolutionize our understanding of spacetime. At the very least, these theoretical findings are sure to stimulate debate within the scientific community, as well as experiments designed to offer direct evidence. And that, as we know, is the only way we can advance our understanding of this thing known as the Universe.
Sun glints off atmospheric ice crystals (circled in red) in this view captured by NASA's EPIC instrument on NOAA's DISCOVR satellite. Image Credit: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center
Back in 1993, Carl Sagan encountered a puzzle. The Galileo spacecraft spotted flashes coming from Earth, and nobody could figure out what they were. They called them ‘specular reflections’ and they appeared over ocean areas but not over land.
The images were taken by the Galileo space probe during one of its gravitational-assist flybys of Earth. Galileo was on its way to Jupiter, and its cameras were turned back to look at Earth from a distance of about 2 million km. This was all part of an experiment aimed at finding life on other worlds. What would a living world look like from a distance? Why not use Earth as an example?
Fast-forward to 2015, when the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) launched the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVER) spacecraft. DSCOVER’s job is to orbit Earth a million miles away and to warn us of dangerous space weather. NASA has a powerful instrument on DSCOVER called the Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera (EPIC.)
Every hour, EPIC takes images of the sunlit side of Earth, and these images can be viewed on the EPIC website. (Check it out, it’s super cool.) People began to notice the same flashes Sagan saw, hundreds of them in one year. Scientists in charge of EPIC started noticing them, too.
One of the scientists is Alexander Marshak, DSCOVR deputy project scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. At first, he noticed them only over ocean areas, the same as Sagan did 25 years ago. Only after Marshak began investigating them did he realize that Sagan had seen them too.
Back in 1993, Sagan and his colleagues wrote a paper discussing the results from Galileo’s examination of Earth. This is what they said about the reflections they noticed: “Large expanses of blue ocean and apparent coastlines are present, and close examination of the images shows a region of [mirror-like] reflection in ocean but not on land.”
Marshak surmised that there could be a simple explanation for the flashes. Sunlight hits a smooth part of an ocean or lake, and reflects directly back to the sensor, like taking a flash-picture in a mirror. Was it really that much of a mystery?
When Marshak and his colleagues took another look at the Galileo images showing the flashes, they found something that Sagan missed back in 1993: The flashes appeared over land masses as well. And when they looked at the EPIC images, they found flashes over land masses. So a simple explanation like light reflecting off the oceans was no longer in play.
“We found quite a few very bright flashes over land as well.” – Alexander Marshak, DSCOVR Deputy Project Scientist
“We found quite a few very bright flashes over land as well,” he said. “When I first saw it I thought maybe there was some water there, or a lake the sun reflects off of. But the glint is pretty big, so it wasn’t that.”
But something was causing the flashes, something reflective. Marshak and his colleagues, Tamas Varnai of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and Alexander Kostinski of Michigan Technological University, thought of other ways that water could cause the flashes.
The primary candidate was ice particles high in Earth’s atmosphere. High-altitude cirrus clouds contain tiny ice platelets that are horizontally aligned almost perfectly. The trio of scientists did some experiments to find the cause of the flashes, and published their results in a new paper published in Geophysical Research Letters.
“Lightning doesn’t care about the sun and EPIC’s location.” – Alexander Marshak, DSCOVR Deputy Project Scientist
As their study details, they first catalogued all of the reflective glints that EPIC found over land; 866 of them in a 14 month period from June 2015 to August 2016. If these flashes were caused by reflection, then they would only appear on locations on the globe where the angle between the Sun and Earth matched the angle between the DSCOVER spacecraft and Earth. As the catalogued the 866 glints, they found that the angle did match.
This ruled out something like lightning as the cause of the flashes. But as they continued their work plotting the angles, they came to another conclusion: the flashes were sunlight reflecting off of horizontal ice crystals in the atmosphere. Other instruments on DSCOVR confirmed that the reflections were coming from high in the atmosphere, rather than from somewhere on the surface.
“The source of the flashes is definitely not on the ground. It’s definitely ice, and most likely solar reflection off of horizontally oriented particles.” -Alexander Marshak, DSCOVR Deputy Project Scientist
Mystery solved. But as is often the case with science, answering one question leads to a couple other questions. Could detecting these glints be used in the study of exoplanets somehow? But that’s one for the space science community to answer.
As for Marshak, he’s an Earth scientist. He’s investigating how common these horizontal ice particles are, and what effect they have on sunlight. If that impact is measurable, then it could be included in climate modelling to try to understand how Earth retains and sheds heat.
Artist's representation of a Dyson ring, orbiting a star at a distance of 1 AU. Credit: WIkipedia Commons/Falcorian
During the 1960s, Freeman Dyson and Nikolai Kardashev captured the imaginations of people everywhere by making some radical proposals. Whereas Dyson proposed that intelligent species could eventually create megastructures to harness the energy of their stars, Kardashev offered a three-tiered classification system for intelligent species based on their ability to harness the energy of their planet, solar system and galaxy, respectively.
The stunning, shaped clouds of gas in the Orion Nebula make it beautiful, but also make it difficult to see inside of. This image of the Orion Nebula was captured by the Hubble Telescope. Image: NASA, ESA, M. Robberto (STScI/ESA) and
The Hubble Space Telescope Orion Treasury Project Team
Welcome back to Messier Monday! In our ongoing tribute to the great Tammy Plotner, we take a look at that Great and most brightest of nebulae – the Orion Nebula!
During the 18th century, famed French astronomer Charles Messier noted the presence of several “nebulous objects” in the night sky. Having originally mistaken them for comets, he began compiling a list of them so that others would not make the same mistake he did. In time, this list (known as the Messier Catalog) would come to include 100 of the most fabulous objects in the night sky.
One of these objects is the Orion Nebula, a diffuse nebula situated just south of Orion’s Belt in the Orion constellation. Located between 1,324 and 1,364 light years distant, it is the closest massive star forming region to Earth. Little wonder then why it is the brightest nebula in the night sky and can be seen on a clear evening with the naked eye.
Description:
Known as “The Great Orion Nebula,” let’s learn what makes it glow. M42 is a great cloud of gas spanning more than 20,000 times the size of our own solar system and its light is mainly florescent. For most observers, it appears to have a slight greenish color – caused by oxygen being stripped of electrons by radiation from nearby stars.
A pair of binoculars will make the “Curlicue” pop in Orion’s Belt. Although the stars aren’t related, they form a delightfully curvy line-of-sight pattern. Credit: Bob King
At the heart of this immense region is an area known as the “Trapezium” – its four brightest stars form perhaps the most celebrated multiple star system in the night sky. The Trapezium itself belongs to a faint cluster of stars now approaching main sequence and resides in an area of the nebula known as the “Huygenian Region” (named after 17th century astronomer and optician Christian Huygens who first observed it in detail).
Buried amidst the bright ribbons and curls of this cloud of predominately hydrogen gas are many star forming regions. Appearing like “knots,” these Herbig-Haro objects are thought to be stars in the earliest stages of condensation. Associated with these objects are a great number of faint red stars and erratically luminous variables – young stars, possibly of the T Tauri type.
There are also “flare stars,” whose rapid variations in brightness mean an ever changing view. “Orion may seem very peaceful on a cold winter night, but in reality it holds very massive, luminous stars that are destroying the dusty gas cloud from which they formed,” said Tom Megeath, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
While studying M42, you’ll note the apparent turbulence of the area – and with good reason. The “Great Nebula’s” many different regions move at varying speeds. The rate of expansion at the outer edges may be caused by radiation from the very youngest stars present. Said Massimo Roberto, an astronomer at the Space Science Telescope Institute in Baltimore:
“In this bowl of stars we see the entire formation history of Orion printed into the features of the nebula: arcs, blobs, pillars and rings of dust that resemble cigar smoke. Each one tells a story of stellar winds from young stars that impact the environment and the material ejected from other stars.”
The star Alnitak and Flame Nebula in Orion. Credit and copyright: César Cantú.
Although M42 may have been luminous for as long as 23,000 years, it is possible that new stars are still forming, while others were ejected by gravitation – known as “runaway” stars. A tremendous X-ray source (2U0525-06) is quite near the Trapezium and hints at the possibility of a black hole present within M42. The Trapezium’s stellar winds also are responsible for the formation of stars inside the nebula – their shock waves compressing the medium and igniting starbirth.
“When you look closely, you see that the nebula is filled with hundreds of visible shock waves,” said Bob O’Dell, an astronomer from Vanderbilt University. O’Dell was fortunate enough to use Hubble to map Orion’s stellar winds and create a map of two of Orion’s three star-forming regions… Regions where the winds have been blowing continuously for nearly 1,500 years!
What else have we learned about the Great Orion nebula in recent years? Try the discovery of 13 drifting gas planets. These rare, “free-floating” objects were confirmed by Patrick Roche of the University of Oxford and Philip Lucas of the University of Hertfordshire just before the turn of the century. They were found with the Hubble Space Telescope while looking for faint stars and brown dwarfs. As he explained:
“The objects are likely to be large gas planets similar in size to Jupiter and consisting primarily of hydrogen and helium. From the measured brightness and the known distance to the Orion nebula, we knew they did not have enough material for any nuclear processing in their interiors.”
Orion’s Horsehead Nebula Credit & Copyright Ryan Steinberg & Family, Adam Block, NOAO, AURA, NSF
Chances are very good these planets may be failed stars – much like our own Jupiter. But these planets don’t orbit a star the same way our solar system’s planets orbit the Sun… they simply roam around. Dr. Roche said that the 13 objects “probably formed in a different way from the planets in our solar system” in that they were not made “out of the residue of material left over from the birth of the sun.”
Instead, they formed “like stars via the collapse of a cloud of cold gas,” explained Lucas. “But they possess most of the physical properties and structure of gas giant planets,” added Lucas.
History of Observation:
Messier 42 was possibly discovered 1610 by Nicholas-Claude Fabri de Peiresc and was recorded by by Johann Baptist Cysatus, Jesuit astronomer, in 1611. For fans of the great Galileo, he was the first to mention the Trapezium cluster in 1617, but did not see the nebula. (However, do not despair! For it is my belief that he was simply using too much magnification and therefore could not see the extent of what he was looking at.)
The first known drawing of the Orion nebula was created by Giovanni Batista Hodierna, and after all of these documents were lost, the Orion nebula was once again credited to Christian Huygens 1656, documented by Edmund Halley in 1716. It then went on to Jean-Jacques d’Ortous de Mairan in his nebulae descriptions, to be added by Philippe Loys de Chéseaux to his list, expounded by Guillaume Legentil in his review.
Horsehead Nebula at the Orion. Credit & Copyright Adam Block, Mt. Lemmon SkyCenter, U. Arizona
At last, Charles Messier added the nebula to his catalog on March 4, 1769. As he wrote of the stunning objectL
“The drawing of the nebula in Orion, which I present at the Academy, has been traced with the greatest care which is possible for me. The nebula is represented there as I have seen it several times with an excellent achromatic refractor of three and a half feet focal length, with a triple lens, of 40 lignes [3.5 inches] aperture, and which magnifies 68 times. This telescope made in London by Dollond, belongs to M. President de Saron. I have examined that nebula with the greatest attention, in an entirely serene sky, as follows: February 25 & 26, 1773. Orion in the Meridian. March 19, between 8 & 9 o’clock in the evening. [March] 23, between 7 & 8 o’clock. The 25th & 26th of the same month, at the same time. These combined observations and the drawings brought together, have enabled me to represent with care and precision its shape and its appearances.
“This drawing will serve to recognize, in following times, if this nebula is subject to any changes. There may be already cause to presume this; for, if one compares this drawing with those given by MM. Huygens, Picard, Mairan and by le Gentil, one finds there such a change that one would have difficulty to figure out that this was the same. I will make these observations in the following with the same telescope and the same magnification. In the figure which I give, the circle represents the field of the telescope in its true aperture; it contains the Nebula and thirty Stars of different magnitudes. The figure is inverted, as it is shown in the instrument; one recognizes there also the extension and the limits of this nebula, the sensible difference between its clearest or most apparent light with that which merges gradually with the background of the sky. The jet of light, directed from the star no. 8 to the star no. 9, passing by a small star of the 10th magnitude, which is extremely rare, as well as the light directed to the star no. 10, and that which is opposite, where there are the eight stars contained in the nebula; among these stars, there is one of the eighth magnitude, six of the tenth, and the eighth of the eleventh magnitude. M. de Mairan, in his Traite de l’Aurore Boreale, speaks of the star no. 7. I report it in my drawing below such as it is at present, and as I have seen; so to speak surrounded by a thin nebulosity. In the night of October 14 to 15, 1764, in a serene sky, I determined with regard to Theta in the nebula, the positions of the more apparent stars in right ascension and declination, by the means of a micrometer adapted to a Newtonian telescope of 4 1/2 feet length. These stars are numbered up to ten; I have reported them in the drawing containing the field of the telescope; and an eleventh of them is beyond the circle. The positions of the stars which are not marked with numbers have been fixed by estimating their relative alignments. One will know easily also the magnitude of the Stars by the model which I have reported on the figure. Those of the tenth and the eleventh magnitude are absolutely telescopic and very difficult to find.”
However, it would be Sir William Herschel who would devote much love, time, and attention to the Great Orion Nebula – even though his findings would never be made public. As a true master observer, he had quite a talent for sensing what truly might lay beyond the boundary:
“In 1783, I reexamined the nebulous star, and found it to be faintly surrounded with a circular glory of whitish nebulosity, faintly joined to the great nebula. About the latter end of the same year I remarked that it was not equally surrounded, but most nebulous toward the south. In 1784 I began to entertain an opinion that the star was not connected with the nebulosity of the great nebula in Orion, but was one of those which are scattered over that part of the heavens. In 1801, 1806, and 1810 this opinion was fully confirmed, by the gradual change which happened in the great nebula, to which the nebulosity surrounding this star belongs. For the intensity of the light about the nebulous star had by this time been considerably reduced, by attenuation or dissipation of nebulous matter; and it seemed now to be pretty evident that the star is far behind the nebulous matter, and that consequently its light in passing through it is scattered and deflected, so as to produce the appearance of a nebulous star. A similar phenomenon may be seen whenever a planet or a star of the 1st or 2nd magnitude happens to be involved in haziness; for a diffused circular light will then be seen, to which, but in a much inferior degree, that which surrounds this nebulous star bears a great resemblance.”
But of course, the great Sir William Herschel also had nights from his many notes on M42 where he simply said: “The nebula in Orion which I saw by the front-view was so glaring and beautiful that I could not think of taking any place of its extent.”
Locating Messier 42:
Finding Messier 42 is very easy from a dark sky location by centering on the glowing region in the center of Orion’s “sword”. However, from urban locations, these stars might not be visible, so aim your binoculars or telescope about a fist width south of the three prominent stars that make the asterism known as Orion’s Belt. It’s a very bright and large object well suited to all sky conditions and instruments!
This chart shows the location of Messier 78 in the famous constellation of Orion (The Hunter). Credit: ESO, IAU and Sky & Telescope
Remember to use low power to get the full majesty of M42 and to increase magnification to study various regions. And trust us when we tell you, you are in for some pretty awesome viewing!
And of course, here are the quick facts on Messier 42 to help you get started:
Object Name: Messier 42 Alternative Designations: M42, NGC 1976, The Great Orion Nebula, Home of the Trapezium Object Type: Emission and Reflection Nebula with Open Galactic Star Cluster Constellation: Orion Right Ascension: 05 : 35.4 (h:m) Declination: -05 : 27 (deg:m) Distance: 1.3 (kly) Visual Brightness: 4.0 (mag) Apparent Dimension: 85×60 (arc min)
