Space In General

I was outside last night and the sky was unusually clear with great visibility looking up at the firmament.

My eyes are always drawn towards Orion's belt whenever I get these rare opportunities and sure enough there it was. The three stars were shining bright and clear and I could have stood there all night watching them.

There has always been something special about Orion's belt to me. It's been that way for most of my life. It has a calming and reassuring effect on me, I guess it could even be a spiritual experience. It feels like things are going to be okay.

Well anyway, I'm thankful whenever I get to see the belt up in the night sky.
 
I would say that NASA's Unexplained Files has very little actual editorial input from, um... NASA, and is instead something on the order of pyramids by aliens "science." You have a picture of a rock.

There.

Explained. :)


Wait, wait, wait.....

Did Marvin ever have an anvil dropped on his head?
26054145867_3078bd060d.jpg
 
Last edited:
wfooshee
You have a picture of a rock.
Click to expand...
It looks like it could be a gun turret from an alien siege spacecraft or, if that scale is too grand and this is indeed significantly smaller, maybe it's the fossilized remains of the infamous tube-anused tortoise of Titan.

*whistles X-Files theme*
 
Here's the original image from NASA. https://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/00064/mcam/0064MR0285005000E1_DXXX.jpg

The SCI channel documentary segment on the object featured NASA planetary scientists Jim Bell and Pascal Lee, as well as author Jason Major, and SETI astronomer Seth Shostak.

It's important to bear in mind that NASA's current mission on Mars is to find evidence of water, or past water. They have a policy of avoiding anything or anywhere that might be connected to present or past life due to the problem of contamination. In the future, the near future, NASA will deploy a rover designed to find evidence of present or past life. Usually, they will accomplish their mission. So wait for it.
 
Last edited:
I searched 2 seconds and found this for you. :lol:

Home About Overview Categories Policy News Events Documents Requirements Design Mars Missions History Course Links Glossary



10.jpg

all of the planets, all of the time



42.jpg
43.jpg
44.jpg
40.jpg

FAQS

About the Office

Mission Categories I-V

Annotated Requirements

List of Missions

COSPAR PP Panel

Contact NASA PPO

About the Office

Overview

News

Events

Documents

Mission Categories

Solar System Bodies

List of Missions

Mission Design & Planning

Mission Requirements

Mars Requirements

International Policy

Workshops in Planetary Protection

History of Planetary Protection

Course in Planetary Protection

Glossary of Terms

Contacts

Links


Overview
What is Planetary Protection?

Planetary protection is the term given to the practice of protecting solar system bodies (i.e., planets, moons, comets, and asteroids) from contamination by Earth life, and protecting Earth from possible life forms that may be returned from other solar system bodies.


Why is Planetary Protection Important?

Planetary protection is essential for several important reasons: to preserve our ability to study other worlds as they exist in their natural states; to avoid contamination that would obscure our ability to find life elsewhere — if it exists; and to ensure that we take prudent precautions to protect Earth’s biosphere in case it does. Typically, planetary protection is divided into two major components: forward contamination, which refers to the biological contamination of explored solar system bodies; and backward contamination, which refers to the biological contamination of Earth as a result of returned extraterrestrial samples.


NASA Planetary Protection Policy

NASA maintains a planetary protection policy that is defined by the NASA Policy Directive (NPD) 8020.7G: Biological Contamination Control for Outbound and Inbound Planetary Spacecraft. In turn, the NASA Office of Planetary Protection administers associated procedures to ensure compliance with NPD 8020.7G using the guidelines and requirements described in the NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 8020.12D: Planetary Protection Provisions for Robotic Extraterrestrial Missions. As described in the following section, the NASA policy, and its associated guidelines and requirements, are well aligned with the COSPAR Planetary Protection Policy, and is consistent with Article IX of the ‘Outer Space Treaty’. More information is provided in the history of planetary protection and international policy pages of this site. NASA’s Planetary Protection Officer oversees compliance with formal implementation requirements that are assigned to each mission, and is typically directly involved in the development and planning stages of solar system missions. More information on the requirements is provided below, and a summary of the planetary protection mission categories, planetary protection requirements, and methods & implementation used to ensure compliance with NASA policy are found on the respective pages of this site. In accordance with the NASA policy, requirements are based on the most current scientific information available about the target bodies and about life on Earth. The Planetary Protection Officer requests recommendations on implementation requirements for missions to a specific solar system body, or class of bodies, from internal and external advisory committees (for example, the National Advisory Council Planetary Protection Subcommittee); but most notably from the Space Studies Board of the National Research Council. In recent years the Space Studies Board has provided recommendations on planetary protection requirements for Mars, Europa, and sample return missions from a variety of small solar system bodies such as moons, comets, and asteroids. Many of the Space Studies Board reports are posted on the Documents page. Recommendations from the Space Studies Board are routinely reassessed as new information becomes available.


International Treaties and Organizations with Cognizance of Planetary Protection Activities

Agreements regarding planetary protection stem from the 1967 United Nations Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Bodies, which states that all countries party to the treaty “shall pursue studies of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, and conduct exploration of them so as to avoid their harmful contamination.” Internationally, technical aspects of planetary protection are developed through deliberations by the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR), part of the International Council of Science (ICSU), which consults with the United Nations in this area. The COSPAR Panel on Planetary Protectiondevelops and makes recommendations on planetary protection policy to COSPAR, which may adopt them as part of the official COSPAR Planetary Protection Policy. More information on the history of planetary protection and international policy is provided on the respective pages of this site.


Requirements for Protecting Life on Other Bodies

Planetary protection requirements for each mission and target body are determined based on the scientific advice of the Space Studies Board and on NASA or international policy guidelines. Each mission is categorized according to the type of mission (e.g., flyby, orbiter, or lander), the nature of its destination (e.g., a planet, moon, comet, or asteroid), and the planetary bodies that may be encountered during the mission (e.g., Mars and Europa). The corresponding requirements are, in turn, formalized and developed in consultation with the Planetary Protection Officer. In general, if the target body has the potential to provide clues about life or prebiotic chemical evolution, a spacecraft going there must meet a higher level of cleanliness, and some operating restrictions will be imposed. If non-target bodies of interest to life or prebiotic chemical evolution may be encountered during mission, the spacecraft may also be required to meet a higher level of cleanliness, and some operating restrictions may be imposed. Spacecraft traveling to target bodies with the potential to support Earth life must undergo stringent cleaning and sterilization processes, and greater operating restrictions. Further information can be obtained from the following pages:

Click to expand...
 
https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/meet-the-martians

The first Martian landers, Vikings 1 and 2, which launched in 1975, were the cleanest things that NASA has ever sent into space. After their final bake-off at Kennedy Space Center (two hundred and thirty-three degrees Fahrenheit for thirty hours), they were determined to have just 0.3 organisms remaining—not an actual tally, of course, but the result of an abstract calculation that took into account the results of pre-assembly surface swabs and average kill rates. When the Viking data came back from Mars, it painted a picture of a much harsher, drier environment than many planetary scientists had hoped or imagined, and subsequent missions were accordingly allowed to carry a higher bioburden. The Mars Science Laboratory—the mission that landed the Curiosity Rover in August, 2012—was estimated to host just under thirty thousand heat-resistant bacterial endospores at launch, many more than Viking, but, as Conley pointed out, “still fewer than the number on your hand.”

As NASA scientists have learned more about both the Martian climate and the extreme hardiness of some Earth microbes, however, they have had to update their risk assessments. “The idea was that we need to be the most vigilant on the early missions, when we don’t have any knowledge of Mars, and we can relax when we know more,” Conley said. “But it turns out maybe we relaxed too much.” When she conducted the planetary-protection review of Curiosity’s proposed landing site, at Gale Crater, she thought, “This is a flat site at the equator. There’s no way it will have water.” Following last week’s announcement, however, it now seems that there may be water only a few miles away from Curiosity’s path. Under current COSPAR rules, the rover is not clean enough to go near it. “Mars continues to surprise us,” Conley said. “This is a good problem to have.” To solve it, she is consulting her advisory committee, an eclectic group of geologists, astrobiologists, planetary scientists, representatives from other government departments and foreign space agencies, a lawyer, a communications expert, and—this spot is currently vacant—an ethicist.
Click to expand...
 
Looked at Google Doodle this morning and continued to read a bit about Mr. Haro
and his achievements.

guillermo-haros-105th-birthday-6241048765399040.6-l.png

Guillermo Haro spotted supernovae and flare stars in the night sky
The Mexican astronomer identified the mysterious jets of gas in the Orion nebula.
By Umair Irfan Updated Mar 21, 2018, 7:56am EDT
Guillermo Haro, who was the first to discover several nebulae, flare stars, and supernovae in the cosmos, is honored in today’s Google Doodle on what would have been his 105th birthday.

snippet:
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
From his perch at the Tonantzintla Observatory in Puebla, Mexico, he observed jets of gases ejected at hundreds of miles per second from newborn stars forming clouds in space. These formations are now known as Herbig-Haro objects; Haro shares credit with George Herbig, who identified them on his own.

Haro also scoured the sky around the Orion Nebula in the Orion constellation, finding red and blue flare stars, small stars that surge unpredictably with brightness. He identified the Haro-Chavira Comet as well.
----------------------------------
----------------------------------
Click to expand...
https://www.vox.com/2018/3/21/17144988/google-doodle-guillermo-haro-birthday-105-astronomer-orion
 
So hoping to make a trip to Vandenberg AFB for the May 5th Falcon 9 launch. Did a little research and got a good place to watch located which I guess is like 4 miles from the launch pad. Just hope it's not postponed or scrubbed the morning of. It's also at 7:20am (as of right now) so I'm not sure if I want to get a hotel in LA and make the drive up there super early that morning, or just get a hotel nearby.

I'd also like to catch a Falcon Heavy launch towards the end of the year but flying to Florida only to have it scrubbed would be a huge bummer.
 
TenEightyOne
M'kay... source? :D
Click to expand...

Do you just have trouble trusting him or what? Considering Dotini does sometimes go on a very unorthodox and albeit paranormal rant and spewing of info, he also has the tendency to post up actual useful info on space science.

The clean room building and loading of the rovers, was discussed by a few of the professors who saw the project through and helped with it at the university since ASU played a big part on the rovers. So maybe it's just me finding it strange to see someone question another, on a NASA funded program trying to preserve potential life or locations of it on another planet. So it makes perfect sense, to not want to see contamination there, and vice versa on objects from space returning to earth.

Clearly there is no one saying life exist on Mars but rather, if it does, let's not destroy or run the risk of ruining it. Until actual applications can be sent more suited for the task of analysis and recovery which is obvious that the current rovers lack.
 
R1600Turbo
So hoping to make a trip to Vandenberg AFB for the May 5th Falcon 9 launch. Did a little research and got a good place to watch located which I guess is like 4 miles from the launch pad. Just hope it's not postponed or scrubbed the morning of. It's also at 7:20am (as of right now) so I'm not sure if I want to get a hotel in LA and make the drive up there super early that morning, or just get a hotel nearby.

I'd also like to catch a Falcon Heavy launch towards the end of the year but flying to Florida only to have it scrubbed would be a huge bummer.
Click to expand...
Correction on this, apparently the May 5th launch is NOT a Falcon 9 but an Atlas V. I swear the schedule changed and it was a F9 before. Either way, my next opportunity to go to a F9 launch would have been April 28th but I was supposed to be out of town that week for a work trip. Found out yesterday that the trip was moved up so now I can attend that launch. So that is the plan.
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
Do you just have trouble trusting him or what? Considering Dotini does sometimes go on a very unorthodox and albeit paranormal rant and spewing of info, he also has the tendency to post up actual useful info on space science.
Click to expand...

He also has a tendency to produce stuff from dubious sources as fact or present his wholly arbitrary opinions as fact. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask anyone for an actual source on scientific research or policy, and that goes double for people who have been less than reliable in the past.
 
Imari
He also has a tendency to produce stuff from dubious sources as fact or present his wholly arbitrary opinions as fact. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask anyone for an actual source on scientific research or policy, and that goes double for people who have been less than reliable in the past.
Click to expand...

Well I said that already basically when talking about the fringe stuff he does say. Most of the stuff I've seen on here from him isn't dubious and is actually informative and real, just on stuff most people wouldn't really think about. Like upper atmospheric phenomenon due to cosmic forces, like solar winds/flares/bursts.

As for how reasonable, I would say it's not unreasonable sure, but since same said user (1081) doesn't tend to ask everyone making a point of things for a source, it gives the vibe that it's the person (dotini in this case) in this case. Which is why I find it a bit goofy while at the same time acceptable, even though dotini's claims weren't all that off the wall. However, since he says he was genuinely curious that basically answers the question I posed. I just tend to see Dotini be the odd guy out (even by me) and it just doesn't necessarily need to always be the case.
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
Which is why I find it a bit goofy while at the same time acceptable, even though dotini's claims weren't all that off the wall.
Click to expand...

In this case the claims were solidly on the wall, but it's still interesting to see. I mean, there's a legitimate trade off to be made on the odds of detecting life (which seem fairly remote at this stage) versus more deeply examining areas which we already have prior knowledge of. Locking yourself out of that is unusual.

I find it odd that it's actually a policy for Mars landers; certainly they attempt to avoid transporting any living species to Mars accidentally but not overlapping landers is not protecting Mars from "contamination", all it's doing is increasing the confidence of any scientific results that point towards native Martian life. I would have thought that it would be a guideline, unless you have reason you should avoid previous landing sites but it wouldn't be a hard and fast requirement if you were attempting to further study an area. Any results from a site that has had multiple landings would take that into consideration before pushing out the "Marvin the Martian Discovered On Mars" headlines.

But NASA is getting pretty bureaucratic these days, so I'm not that surprised that someone managed to make that into a rule.
 
Imari
In this case the claims were solidly on the wall, but it's still interesting to see. I mean, there's a legitimate trade off to be made on the odds of detecting life (which seem fairly remote at this stage) versus more deeply examining areas which we already have prior knowledge of. Locking yourself out of that is unusual.

I find it odd that it's actually a policy for Mars landers; certainly they attempt to avoid transporting any living species to Mars accidentally but not overlapping landers is not protecting Mars from "contamination", all it's doing is increasing the confidence of any scientific results that point towards native Martian life. I would have thought that it would be a guideline, unless you have reason you should avoid previous landing sites but it wouldn't be a hard and fast requirement if you were attempting to further study an area. Any results from a site that has had multiple landings would take that into consideration before pushing out the "Marvin the Martian Discovered On Mars" headlines.

But NASA is getting pretty bureaucratic these days, so I'm not that surprised that someone managed to make that into a rule.
Click to expand...

I dont, it is similar to wanting to keep an area undisturbed here on earth that has ancient history with in it. I find the rovers as much scientific in effort to find life, as they are a potential archaeological exploration if signs of advanced ancient life is found.

They don't overlap it seems because they want to expand the field of study, rather than have two landers cover the same path or being in a relative close proximity to each other over time.

To be honest I don't think there is or was life on mars or really any where in our local backyard outside of maybe under the ice sheets of Europa.
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
I dont, it is similar to wanting to keep an area undisturbed here on earth that has ancient history with in it. I find the rovers as much scientific in effort to find life, as they are a potential archaeological exploration if signs of advanced ancient life is found.
Click to expand...
I'm even willing to make a bigger leap and accept not wanting to introduce any alien material, biological or otherwise, to an environment being studied as it may affect the context of any discoveries made, whether they be evidence of life or anything else.
 
TexRex
I'm even willing to make a bigger leap and accept not wanting to introduce any alien material, biological or otherwise, to an environment being studied as it may affect the context of any discoveries made, whether they be evidence of life or anything else.
Click to expand...

I think that was essentially what Dotini was trying to get at. But yeah I agree with what you're saying as well.
 
Strange, glowing space tornado needs an explanation.
From today's edition of spaceweather.com

STRANGE AURORA-LIKE ARC SIGHTED OVER ALASKA: On Saturday night, something happened at the edge of space over Alaska. More than 200 km above Anchorage, a hot ribbon of ionized gas sliced through Earth's magnetosphere, creating a luminous arc that rivaled the Moon in brightness. Sanjana Greenhill witnessed the apparition:


"We noticed this perfect arc developing across the sky," says Greenhill. "It didn't seem like the aurora since it wasn't moving much. The arc got brighter and then faded and then got brighter again. And then it dawned on me, this is STEVE!"

STEVE is an aurora-like phenomenon that researchers are only beginning to understand. For many years, northern sky watchers reported the form occasionally dancing alongside auroras. It was widely called a "proton arc" until researchers pointed out that protons had nothing to do with it. So members of the Alberta Aurora Chasers group gave it a new name: "Steve" (since upgraded to STEVE, an acronym for 'Strong Thermal Emission Velocity Enhancement').

The first clues to the nature of STEVE came in 2016 when one of the European Space Agency's Swarm satellites encountered the phenomenon. "As the satellite flew straight though 'Steve,' the temperature jumped by 3000°C and the data revealed a 25 km-wide ribbon of gas flowing westwards at about 6 km/s (13,000 mph)," reports Eric Donovan from the University of Calgary.


This ESA animation shows Swarm satellites orbiting Earth above ground cameras observing STEVE

Donovan and a team of colleagues led by Elizabeth MacDonald of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center have just published a paper on STEVE. In it, they confirm that STEVE is distinct from ordinary auroras, usually forming to the south of active Northern Lights. The mauve and purple colored arcs, they say, are related to supersonic rivers of gas called "subauroral ion drifts" (SAIDs), which flow through Earth's magnetic field. Earth-orbiting satelites have tracked thousands of SAIDs: they tend to appear near latitude +60 degrees, and occur more frequently during spring and fall than summer and winter.

This last point means that now is the season for STEVE. The onset of northern spring seems to lure the arc out of winter hiding.

"I saw STEVE for the first time on March 18th," reports Giuseppe Petricca , who took this sequence of pictures from the Isle of Lewis in Scotland:
Click to expand...



"It was an ever-changing tornado, with violet tones, always in movement, always with different shapes," he says. "Another wonder of Nature!"

The mystery of STEVE is far from solved. Researchers still don't understand why STEVE is purple--or for that matter why the underlying rivers of gas should glow at all. "Further spectral analysis and modeling are needed," say MacDonald et al.
 
Successful Falcon 9 launch this morning from Vandenberg AFB in California. Unfortunately the launch from the same location on April 28th was delayed so I will not be watching a launch while I am in the area that weekend. :( That's the bad part with rocket launches, they're never set in stone until the countdown hits zero and it jumps off the pad. I'd love to go to Florida in June for the next Falcon Heavy launch but planning around that could be a nightmare.

Iridium-5 Mission by Official SpaceX Photos, on Flickr
 

Latest Posts

Back