Now Playing

The New Horizons website has a cute movie-style trailer promoting the progress of the Pluto-Kuiper Belt Mission, scheduled to reach Pluto in 2015. The spacecraft's closest approach to Jupiter, however, occurs in two weeks. It's already sent back some stunning photos.

The promo trailer is pretty clever, and comes complete with dramatic voiceovers, special effects, and studious-looking physicists being enthusiastic. I also learned the correct way to pronounce "Kuiper." (I've been saying "Cooper Belt" for longer than I care to admit.)

Remember when theaters used to screen short films, cartoons, and news briefs before the feature presentation? (OK, so maybe you don't remember this.) It would be cool to see something like this pop up on the screen sometime. When I have my very own movie palace, I'm totally going to make with the NASA trailers.

In semi-related news, plans for a motion picture detailing the story of astronaut Lisa Nowak's cross-country journey have been shelved, for now. Meanwhile, plans for a remake of Capricorn One are well underway. And the ground will always be there for you when you fall.

Psychological Screening

Question One:

Think of three of your friends or former schoolmates. You have all been chosen by your employer to participate in an exciting and challenging journey that will put your lives at risk. You will need to train with your three colleagues for several years, during which you will learn to depend on each other's training and professionalism in potentially life-endangering circumstances.

After your training is complete, you find that your friends will be making the journey earlier than you. You are disappointed, but happy that they have been given the opportunity to put their years of training to practical use.

The journey is successful, but on the voyage back home, your friends are killed, their bodies destroyed beyond recognition. You soon realize that your friends died, not because of any fault of their own, but because your employer did not assume responsibility for their safety and, indeed, did not make any extra effort to inform your friends of their potential endangerment, the very kind of endangerment that you spent several years learning to anticipate and minimize.

Many months later, you follow the same path they took on their own fatal journey, but this time the journey is successful and you return safely. You fall in love with another classmate, one who is about to go on the same journey from which you have just returned. You want to go on the journey again.

Question: Are you insane? Discuss.

Here is NASA Deputy Administrator Shana Dale's statement regarding Capt. Lisa Nowak. Please refer to this statement in your response.

For the World Is Hollow. . .

This time of year--late January through early February--has never been a good season for NASA. Last week saw the anniversaries of the Challenger and Columbia disasters, as well as the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 1 fire. And though there are no shuttles in orbit at the moment, the tidings this year are no less grim.

Today comes the somewhat bizarre and disappointingly earth-bound story of astronaut Lisa Nowak's alleged attempt to kidnap a fellow NASA employee, Colleen Shipman, who Nowak percieved as a potential rival for the affections of another astronaut, William Oefelein.

It has never been a secret that the astronaut corps is composed of a fair share of what a former neighbor of mine used to refer to as "horndogs"--ultra-macho playas who strode the world like little Caesars, rightfully proud to be selected as America's standard-bearers in orbit and, later, the moon. With the diversification of the astronaut corps in the late 1980s, as the shuttle became the "manned" space vehicle of choice, there was less emphasis placed on the action-star qualities of the astronauts and more emphasis given to their scientific and technical backgrounds. Though the corps is still largely populated by current and former members of the armed services--especially the Navy--shuttle astronauts are perceived as people who work in space rather than test pilot thrill-jockies.

This shift in perception and the methods used to select future astronauts are both to be applauded, particularly if we are to have any kind of practical future in space (as I believe we must). Though the astronauts may not be seen nowadays with the same kind of golden aura that surrounded the Mercury 7, they are more widely recognizable as true representatives of the diversity of this country.

It's probably no secret that I idolize these people, the way that some idolize soldiers or athletes. I still have vague hopes of one day being able to see the world from orbit, once the ticket price comes down a bit. So when I heard about the romantic rivalry between Nowak and Shipman, my feelings, to say the least, were mixed. At some level, I recognize that these people are, you know, human, and subject to all the complexities and contradictions and failings of human emotion. And, at its most basic level, the story of Nowak's obsessive pursuit of her rival would be of interest even if she had never set foot on a launch platform. But my primary reaction is one of deep disappointment, and Nowak's story makes an unsightly smear on my idealistic notions of what an astronaut represents, or should represent. I suppose this sense of disappointment is not unlike hearing stories of American soldiers raping schoolgirls in, well, pick your favorite war zone.

Though I recognize that the image I have of astronauts is largely informed by NASA publicity and Hollywood glorification (the contrast between Nowak's official astronaut photo and her mug shot should offer compelling evidence of the power of NASA's publicity machine), it still makes for a sad story. And, though it will do nothing to stop the media's recitation of Nowak's failings, I feel the need to at least make mention of her commendation and meritorious service medals, and the fact that, you know, she has over 1500 flight hours.

In other bad news for NASA, budget cuts may mean that the U.S. has no manned orbital capability after the shuttle fleet is decommissioned in 2010 (a date with ironic implications for any fan of Arthur C. Clarke). And even if we do manage to get off the ground, there awaits the increasingly expanding field of orbital debris that poses a threat to all spacecraft.

Space has often been referred to as the "final frontier," the new focal point for the "human adventure," but this February, as in previous Februarys, I find myself more often looking at the ground beneath my feet, trying to get used to it.

Man Lands on the Fucking Moon!

Good reading here: the story of the ongoing search for the original transmission videotapes (with sharper, more distinct imagery than the footage that was broadcast on television) of the Apollo 11 moon landing.

Also cool: 360-degree panoramas of some of the moon landing sites (with audio of the astronauts).

And the original unedited (read: NSFW) audio recordings of the Apollo 11 landing are finally available. Who says the astronauts were unemotive techheads?

Holy living fuck!

Back to the Future

I don't know. It's a bittersweet moment. For one thing, it feels like NASA is taking two steps forward and 1 1/2 steps back. I would love to see another moon landing in my lifetime, but does that mean the shuttle program was just a 25-year engineering project? I think the final crews of Challenger and Columbia, at least, deserve better than that. Of course, the idea is that by 2015 the ISS will be completed and will serve as the way station between earth orbit and the lunar surface. But, increasingly, I have my doubts as to whether the station can be completed by then. And, as a commentator on NPR pointed out this morning, if anything--anything--goes wrong with one of the shuttle missions between now and then, the whole deal is off.

On the other hand, it's nice to see a story like this land on the front page of the NYT, among other newspapers, and to hear human space exploration become a topic of interest again. I hope we can get to the moon again, but, even more, I hope we're ready to stay there this time.

In other retro news, CBS, which apparently now owns the Star Trek franchise, has decided the orignial episodes need a CGI upgrade. While I find this mildly interesting and am curious to see the results, does anyone really think that this will change the way people feel about the episodes? I've never watched Trek for the special effects, something the execs at CBS don't seem to realize (although I always enjoy watching the bit where Sulu and Kirk blow the shit out of that Klingon warbird). On the other hand, the episodes of DS9 and Enterprise in which we get to see those old ships recreated in all their shiny glory with modern SFX techniques bring a certain nobility to the franchise's roots. But, really, does anyone care if the alien landscapes look more realistic or the music is less repetitive? Fans have watched those episodes for 40 years with few complaints and the best of those episodes have never been about snazzy effects. I can't help think that this is less of a gift to Trek fans than a cynical Lucas-like ploy to remarket a franchise that has never needed the help of a media corporation to become an international phenomenon.

Farewell, Ninth Planet

Well, the decision has been rendered. I expect an immediate uprising from schoolchildren and educators worldwide. Meanwhile, the New Horizons spacecraft continues its long, cold journey to the newly decommissioned planet, regardless of astronomer infighting. NASA's Pluto-Kuiper Belt Mission will arrive at Pluto in July 2015. It may not be a planet anymore, but I suspect Pluto will still be there for us, spinning resolutely in its lonely quadrant of space.

Maybe we should start calling all these orbiting objects "worlds" instead of "planets." Where's Carl Sagan when you need him?

Here's the official new definition of what constitutes a "planet" from the International Astronomical Union. And a wistful editorial from a Pluto-as-planet fan.

I must say, the decision makes complete sense to me, and I support it. But when I actually heard the news, I was surprised at the pang of sadness I felt. Seemed like it would always be there, you know? I guess it's still there; it just seems that much farther away.

In related news, a friend recently celebrated his 30th birthday.

NASA Deletes Mention of Earth in Mission Statement

I find this story so appalling and disgusting and sad that I'm going to reproduce it here in its entirety. It encapsulates not only NASA's cowardice, but the incredible stranglehold the Bush Administration has on national science. If this is what it's going to take to get back to the moon, I'd just as soon forget the whole thing. The era of American exceptionalism is dead.

The New York Times
July 22, 2006
NASA’s Goals Delete Mention of Home Planet

By ANDREW C. REVKIN

From 2002 until this year, NASA’s mission statement, prominently featured in its budget and planning documents, read: “To understand and protect our home planet; to explore the universe and search for life; to inspire the next generation of explorers ... as only NASA can.”

In early February, the statement was quietly altered, with the phrase “to understand and protect our home planet” deleted. In this year’s budget and planning documents, the agency’s mission is “to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.”

David E. Steitz, a spokesman for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, said the aim was to square the statement with President Bush’s goal of pursuing human spaceflight to the Moon and Mars.

But the change comes as an unwelcome surprise to many NASA scientists, who say the “understand and protect” phrase was not merely window dressing but actively influenced the shaping and execution of research priorities. Without it, these scientists say, there will be far less incentive to pursue projects to improve understanding of terrestrial problems like climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

“We refer to the mission statement in all our research proposals that go out for peer review, whenever we have strategy meetings,” said Philip B. Russell, a 25-year NASA veteran who is an atmospheric chemist at the Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif. “As civil servants, we’re paid to carry out NASA’s mission. When there was that very easy-to-understand statement that our job is to protect the planet, that made it much easier to justify this kind of work.”

Several NASA researchers said they were upset that the change was made at NASA headquarters without consulting the agency’s 19,000 employees or informing them ahead of time.

Though the “understand and protect” phrase was deleted in February, when the Bush administration submitted budget and planning documents to Congress, its absence has only recently registered with NASA employees.

Mr. Steitz, the NASA spokesman, said the agency might have to improve internal communications, but he defended the way the change was made, saying it reflected the management style of Michael D. Griffin, the administrator at the agency.

“Strategic planning comes from headquarters down,” he said, and added, “I don’t think there was any mal-intent or idea of exclusion.”

The line about protecting the earth was added to the mission statement in 2002 under Sean O’Keefe, the first NASA administrator appointed by President Bush, and was drafted in an open process with scientists and employees across the agency.

In the National Aeronautics and Space Act, which established the agency in 1958, the first objective of the agency was listed as “the expansion of human knowledge of the earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space.”

And since 1972, when NASA launched the first Landsat satellite to track changes on the earth’s surface, the agency has been increasingly involved in monitoring the environment and as a result has been immersed in political disputes over environmental policy and spending, said W. Henry Lambright, a professor of public administration and political science at Syracuse University who has studied the trend.

The shift in language echoes a shift in the agency’s budgets toward space projects and away from earth missions, a shift that began in 2004, the year Mr. Bush announced his vision of human missions to the Moon and beyond.

The “understand and protect” phrase was cited repeatedly by James E. Hansen, a climate scientist at NASA who said publicly last winter that he was being threatened by political appointees for speaking out about the dangers posed by greenhouse gas emissions.

Dr. Hansen’s comments started a flurry of news media coverage in late January; on Feb. 3, Mr. Griffin issued a statement of “scientific openness.”

The revised mission statement was released with the agency’s proposed 2007 budget on Feb. 6. But Mr. Steitz said Dr. Hansen’s use of the phrase and its subsequent disappearance from the mission statement was “pure coincidence.”

Dr. Hansen, who directs the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, a NASA office, has been criticized by industry-backed groups and Republican officials for associating with environmental campaigners and his endorsement of Senator John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election.

Dr. Hansen said the change might reflect White House eagerness to shift the spotlight away from global warming.

“They’re making it clear that they have the authority to make this change, that the president sets the objectives for NASA, and that they prefer that NASA work on something that’s not causing them a problem,” he said.