Hydrostatic Equilibrium

In honor of Earth Day 2013 on April 22, this week's article will be all about new developments related to the entire Earth. And what an exciting time this is for that kind of planetary science!

Researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) announced last week that they had discovered two planets orbiting the K sized star Kepler-62 that could be completely covered in water. Liquid water.

Why is this such a big deal? Normally the temperatures and lack of atmospheres in space prevent water, should it exist at all on that planet, from melting into its liquid form. For there to be any possibility of sustainable life and possible habitation by humans one day, liquid water must be present. And here are two planets who have nothing but oceans full of the liquid orbiting a sun a little bit smaller and cooler than our own sun. Granted, the size and distances of the planets indicate that there is a huge greenhouse effect in their atmospheres to keep the water from freezing, but it's still awesome.

There are some issues with immediate Earth to planet communications though. For one, the planets are larger than the Earth we love; Kepler-62f is 40% larger and Kepler-62e is 60% larger. Researchers are at this point are unable to determine the mass of the planets because their compositions aren't known. This means we don't know if this planet would have any raw materials needed for technology or even life to evolve, since all the rock and metal would be below the surface. It is possible that some life may exist under the ocean's surface, but there would be no fire or access to metals (the pressure would be too great).

Still, the idea that there are two planets in the habitable zone is very useful information for scientists. For one thing, it's the possibility of other life that drives us forward. Second, it could serve as a second home for us (once we get over the increase in gravity thing). Third, studying other planets is just cool. How often have we discovered a planet completely covered in liquid water? Including these two: twice.

Unfortunately, looking at the planets through the Kepler telescope is probably as close as we'll ever get. The planets orbit a start that is 2,700 light years away from us in the Cygnus constellation, so there's no way to get there quickly. If anything this means that we need to take care of the planet we have now because the closest rescue boat is almost 3000 parsecs away, and that's too far for us to be saved. What would Earth look like with only water?

On that note, we wish everyone a happy Earth week!

Mechanical Man’s Mission to the Moon

$150 billion can buy a lot of food, houses, cars, clothes--anything--or it could buy one trip to the moon with a crew of astronauts. Last September, Congress deemed that risk too high, and decided to cancel the program. But hope still remains in the form of a metal man.

An artist's rendition of Robonaut on the moon.

For approximately $200 million, plus $250 million for a rocket, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) engineers at the Johnson Space Center in Houston can build a humanoid robot which runs on batteries and send it to the moon to take measurements and conduct experiments. This robot would never have to sleep, eat, or stop working-it could be the most efficient researcher of all time. Its name would be its mission: Project M.

Perhaps the most ambitious part of this project is that NASA believes it can accomplish this goal in 1,000 days, or a little under 3 years. Project M’s manager, R. Matthew Ondler, explained that this intense deadline “creates this sense of urgency. NASA is at its best when it has a short time to figure out things. You give us six or seven years to think about something, and we’re not so good.“ That time allows for too many external variables to occur and slow the process even further, costing more money and detracting from other possible research paths.

Of course, another advantage to having such a major project completed in a relatively short amount of time is the amount of impact it can have, and the effect of that impact. For example the 1969 Moon Walk inspired a large amount of young students to grow up and study astrophysics and engineering. In recent years, science and math studies have waned in popularity, and NASA hopes that with the success of this project will come a new wave of excited, young minds.

The crew of Apollo 11, the first men on the moon.

Stephen J. Altemus, the chief engineer at Johnson Space Center, stressed that NASA is “doing impossible things with really very little, if any, money whatsoever,” and that the restrictions of Congress could put a hold on their plans. This raises some interesting questions about what happens to NASA if there is not enough money in the Federal Budget to sustain it. It seems that Houston would definitely have a problem then.

This is where the beauty of Project M fully lies. For a few years, NASA has been working on Project Constellation, which would work to send astronauts to the moon. The project has cost $10 billion so far, and, following the September vote, is expected to be canceled by Congress in the 2011 Budget Report, especially as interest in the moon is beginning to lessen. “We’ve been there before,” President Obama declared in April. The general sentiment in Washington is that right now, there is no money to spend on a rock, however large and scientifically interesting it may be. But Project M is, by comparison, very cheap, and would be just as effective as if NASA had sent humans up to the moon. It seems like a win-win situation.

For now, NASA is kicking Project M into top gear. “I always felt like our organization was a Ferrari, and we were never allowed to drive with our foot on the gas,” Mr. Altemus said. “We were kind of at idle speed all the time.” At that speed, NASA will never break out of Earth’s atmosphere, but Project M is going to be the extra fuel they need to go that last mile.

Sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/science/space/02robot.html?pagewanted=1&ref=technology