Astronomy.com blog : Dick McNally

Thinking small makes an astronomical difference

Dick McNally — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 21:19:00 GMT

Is a big telescope better than a small one? Well, it all depends on what you want to use it for and how much the cost difference is.

As with airplanes, bigger isn’t always better. A little two-place airplane works just fine for training pilots in the initial stages, thank you. A six-place jet can often conduct research aloft just as effectively as a big Boeing 747, and at a much lower cost.

So it is with telescopes. This size and cost issue is so important that the American Astronomical Society will hold a conference called the “Alt-Az Initiative for Lightweight Research Telescopes Workshop” June 6-7 at the Hilton Hotel in Pasadena, California. It’s the ninth such gathering the society has arranged on this topic.

One of the panel discussions is titled, “Research programs well suited to low cost, dedicated, 1-2 meter telescopes.” How can small telescopes be better for research? Leaders of the conference say: “Large telescopes excel in the detailed study of faint objects at the edge of the observable universe and high-resolution examination of specific objects. However, small telescopes continue their valuable role in astronomical research through time series, networked, and other observations that only large numbers of small telescopes can provide — tasks which are cost prohibitive for large telescopes. Small telescopes also continue to play a vital role in recruiting and training the next generation of astronomers and instrumentalists, and serve as test beds for developments of novel instruments and experimental methods.”

If you’d like to learn more about this topic by attending the workshop, you can register by going to www.AltAzInitiative.org. Sometimes it pays to think small. (Even the registration fee is small at $35.)

NASA chief promotes human exploration

Dick McNally — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:55:00 GMT

NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin answers a girl’s question at the Experimental Aviation Association’s annual convention July 29. Dick McNally photo

NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin says the United States will establish a base on the Moon in 15 years, and astronauts will land on Mars in 25 years. Speaking of the potential Mars landing, the 58-year-old aerospace engineer said, “I hope to live to see it … it’s within our budget capacity.”

The administrator spoke to a crowd at the Experimental Aviation Association’s AirVenture convention in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, July 29. He compared the challenges of establishing a Moon base to that of getting a foothold on Antarctica 50 years ago. “That’s how I see us on the Moon in the 2020s,” he said.

Addressing the dangers of solar radiation during the Moon and Mars missions, Griffin said we can initially shield the spacecraft using water that astronauts will need anyway. “Water is a really good shield,” he said.

But in the long run, Griffin added, scientists will try to find better answers through research. “How can cockroaches withstand radiation when we cannot?” he asked rhetorically.

The administrator hinted that there may be therapeutic remedies for the radiation such as pharmaceuticals. As an example of solutions to this kind of problem, he cited the experience with scurvy during long sea voyages in earlier centuries. “Millions of people died from it,” he said. Over time, sailors learned to avoid the illness by eating sauerkraut, limes, and other foods while on voyages. Scientists later discovered that those foods provided vitamins missing from the sailors’ diets during the long trips.

Solving the solar radiation problem is critical because 60 percent of NASA’s budget is allocated toward human space exploration, while 30 percent goes toward scientific/robotic work. Griffin expressed strong support for human exploration. He said robotic missions are about science, but “human exploration is about expanding the range of human action.” Citing a statement by scientist Stephen Hawking, Griffin added that, like Hawking, he believes space exploration contributes to the long-term survival of humans. He mentioned potential defenses against asteroid dangers as an example.

The administrator said he thinks Mars exploration will be a continuing program, as opposed to the Apollo program that stopped after seven lunar landings. “We spent $25 billion for a system capable of taking us to the Moon,” he said, adding that $21 billion was spent building the system and only $4 billion using the system. “Then we threw it away,” he said.

Griffin said he’s disappointed that the United States will not be able to continue flying the space shuttle until NASA’s new Ares rockets become available around 2015. (The last shuttle flight will launch in 2010.) “We have only about 10 shuttle launches left,” he said.

In the interim, between the end of the shuttle program and the arrival of a new system, the United States will rely on Russian Soyuz rockets to service and continue building the International Space Station (ISS). “NASA doesn’t have a big enough budget to fly the shuttle while we’re developing a new system to take us to the Moon,” he said, while expressing regret that we would have to rely solely on another country for transportation to the ISS. “It seems silly to put a $100 billion system (the ISS) at risk because we don’t want to spend, say, $3 billion to keep the shuttle going and have a backup for the Russian system to get to the ISS.”

Griffin also addressed questions about reported vibration and payload problems with NASA’s future Ares I Moon rocket. “Most of that is media-induced, to be very honest with you,” he quipped. “I hope this is the worst problem we have in developing the system.” He added that NASA already has half-a-dozen methods to mitigate those problems.

Those magnificent roving machines

Dick McNally — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 07:00:00 GMT

On September 11, 2007, NASA's Mars Exploration

Rover Opportunity entered Victoria Crater on the

rover's 1,291st martian day, or sol. NASA/JPL-Caltech

Note to carmakers: Find out who the people were who built those fantastic rovers on Mars and hire them. They know how to make electric vehicles.

The rovers Spirit and Opportunity have now been operating 40 months beyond their initial 3-month planned missions. Admittedly, NASA probably set the endurance goals for the machines conservatively low; but this ruggedness must surprise even the most cynical expectations-managers.

Some people can't even keep a vacuum cleaner running for 3 years without taking it into the shop for an overhaul. But those interplanetary wonders have kept operating in arctic cold and solar-panel-blocking dust storms while sending wonderful images back to Mother Earth for three and a half years. Anyone who has tried to start and drive a car in below-zero temperatures can appreciate what a challenge it would be for a vehicle to operate on Mars, sans garage. There, temperatures are usually below 0 degrees Fahrenheit (–17° C) and range down well below -100° Fahrenheit (–73° C).

And with the science those rovers have returned, it almost makes one wonder why we need to send astronauts to Mars or even the Moon. (The answer: because we can.)

It certainly bodes well for space exploration that we can accomplish such wonderful Mars exploration missions as we have with, not people, but rovers: those cost-effective, enduring, exciting, historic, technology-developing, researching, digging, photographing, drilling, driving robots that keep on going like the Energizer bunny rabbit.

I don't know how much longer those mechanical Magellans will last. They are living on borrowed time. But a long time from now, after we've sent humans to Mars and back several times, there may be recovered pieces of those rovers in the Smithsonian to remind people of the intrepid adventures of ... machines.

Views of the Winter Star Party

Dick McNally — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:00:00 GMT

I've created a gallery featuring some pictures of the Winter Star Party — a sold-out event held February 12–18 at Big Pine Key, Florida.

Click here to view these images.

Star parties - great for beginners

Dick McNally — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 17:00:00 GMT

The lack of a telescope is no problem for astronomy beginners. When you attend a star party, just about everyone there is willing to let you look through his or her scope.

Last night, here at the Winter Star Party in Big Pine Key, Florida, my wife Mary Lee and I were treated to sights of Saturn and its moons, the Whirlpool Galaxy, M81, M82, the Orion Nebula, and other sights, thanks to generous telescope owners.

One astronomer took the time to readjust his scope to let us see three different sky treats. What better way to get started in this hobby than to have someone with the equipment and willingness to guide you through the night sky?

There aren't too many other fields of interest where this sort of thing exists: Not in bowling ("Pardon me — may I use your ball to knock off that 7-10 split?), not in skydiving ("If you'll let my borrow your parachute, I'll try to re-pack it real carefully."), not in golf ("I forgot my clubs, so maybe we could just share your set for this round."). No, it just wouldn't happen, especially if you're a beginner.

But star parties like this one in the Florida Keys are ideal for novices yearning to learn about the night sky. You'll meet people with a passion for astronomy and a desire to pass on their knowledge.

Having a telescope is optional.

Winter Star Party opens

Dick McNally — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:00:00 GMT

Martin Willes sets up his Astrophysics refractor with a Baader

Energy Rejection filter and Hydrogen-alpha filter. Dick McNally

Florida's famous Winter Star Party is up and running with a sold-out crowd enjoying temperatures in the 80s. Many telescopes are set up on the beach, and not just for the night sky. Some observers came equipped with Hydrogen-alpha filters, and they're taking full advantage of the day sky and solar observing.

Other attendees are visiting vendors or catching a few rays at the beach. The Winter Star Party runs February 12–18. Held three-quarters of the way down the Florida Keys at Big Pine Key, the event boasts exceptionally dark skies. There are lots of accomplished astrophotographers waiting to capitalize on the chance to train their telescopes and cameras out over the dark Atlantic for deep-sky images.

As for me and my wife, Mary Lee, we're looking forward to wandering around the beach tonight and enjoying some of the wonderful images displayed through the eyepieces of some very expensive equipment. Meanwhile, we're checking out the prominences on the Sun.

The Barnyard Constellation

Dick McNally — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 05:26:00 GMT

I had a flying instructior once - his name was John - who told about some of the darkest skies in the United States - over North Dakota.

John was flying cross-country in his Cessna 172 at night. It was so dark that he couldn't see the horizon. The yard lights on the farms below looked like stars.

All of a sudden the cookie tin John had in the back seat started floating up into the air. Then John realized he had so confused the yard lights with the stars that he was starting to turn the airplane upside down. He immediately turned to his instruments and got the airplane under control so he didn't fly down into the "stars."

Looking for good seeing? Go up to North Dakota, where the farm-yard lights get confused with the stars!

Expensive eating: $5,000 a pound

Dick McNally — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 14:16:00 GMT

When I read recently that the International Space Station received more than 2 tons of supplies, including food, water and fuel, I got to thinking how expensive some of that stuff is when you include the shipping. Keep in mind that it costs some $5,000 to $10,000 a pound just to get stuff in orbit.

That would make a hamburger ring up the register at about $3,000. Super-size me, indeed. And a glass of that famous Tang orange drink that astronauts love so much? Add another $3,000.

Please don’t ask for fries.

With Thanksgiving coming up, I shudder to think of the cost of that turkey filled with stuffing. That one meal up there would use up enough cash to buy a Bentley.

I just hope those astronauts are thinking about us poor taxpayers when they eat that second piece of pie.

Mars and why we’ll get there

Dick McNally — Sun, 22 Oct 2006 13:07:00 GMT

Recently a learned scientist called me to tell me why we’ll never make it to Mars. According to this fine gentleman, humans will not be able to stand up to the assault of solar radiation while traveling to the Red Planet or while on Mars’ surface, especially because of the extended length of time such a mission would take.

His argument made sense. It seems there is currently no way to adequately shield humans from the lethal radiation outside Earth’s magnetic field (Apollo astronauts were in danger, but not nearly to the extent Mars voyagers would be).

While the scientist on the phone was probably correct about the potential danger of a Mars mission, I feel quite certain he was wrong about whether we will go there. We will find ways to protect humans during their voyage. Here’s why:

Anyone looking at potential lunar missions back in the ‘50s could have easily concluded that they would be far too dangerous to undertake. Many knowledgeable people would have agreed.

But when President Kennedy declared in 1961 that we would visit the Moon within the decade, danger became an academic discussion. We decided to go and then dealt with the danger. In 8 years and 2 months, Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong were walking on the Moon.

That’s what we’ll do with Mars. We’ll find innovative ways to keep astronauts from being injured by cosmic rays. We’ll successfully fly humans to Mars and then return them, and then ask:

“What’s next?”

Space junk: faster than a speeding bullet, and more dangerous

Dick McNally — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 13:23:00 GMT

If you think litter is a problem here on Earth, consider the junk that orbits our planet. From nuts and bolts to gloves and other stuff left over from space missions, this trash is downright dangerous.

Add to that the natural debris (meteroids) that orbit our planet, and you can see we have to be careful with our spacecraft and crews. That was demonstrated when a radiator on space shuttle Atlantis was punctured by a tiny piece of space debris during its recent mission. The hole was so small that it was not even noticed on the initial post-flight inspections by NASA.

According to NASA, the average impact speed of a piece of orbital debris running into another object is 22,370 mph. At that speed, NASA says, a 9-pound piece of junk (say, a dropped tool bag) suddenly has the same impact as a 60-mph car.

A team of scientists tracks some 100,000 pieces of orbital debris (including meteoroids) 1-10cm wide, and about 11,000 that are even bigger. Their aim: to warn shuttle, space-station and satellite operators about possible collisions so they can take evasive action. Perhaps the piece that hit Atlantis was too small to be monitored by scientists – which just emphasizes the pervasiveness of the problem.

Yes, litter is a problem here on Earth. But when you see someone throw a soda can out the window on the freeway, just be glad it’s not moving at 30 times the speed of sound like the trash orbiting 300 miles above it.