Thursday, December 29, 2011

Harnessing Solar Light - Break through


By: Amruth Uppaluri, 9th Grade

Living in Arizona means lots of sunshine and many options to harness solar energy. When construction started for a solar plant near our house we were all very excited to learn about solar panel manufacturing - as the building size was pretty big. With the bad economy, the biggest question we have is “Can this company survive competition from international solar companies?” For this company to survive, it would need low cost solar technology with more efficiency and easier manufacturing.
When scientist Zhong Wang at Georgia tech announced his invention of optical fibers in solar cell use, it raised many hopes for improving solar technology’s efficiency and cost. He suggested using fiber optic cables with zinc oxide coating instead of traditional solar cells, to form a kind of 3D solar cell. Mr. Wang suggested that by using fiber optic cables we can avoid big black solar panels on top of the buildings. The fiber optic cables, each one - two to three times the width of human hair, would be installed on roof tops in large quantities. The light is absorbed and turned into electrical energy along the cable.
An International team of scientists led by John Badding, a professor of chemistry at Penn State University announced a few days ago that his team developed a new chemical technique for depositing a non-crystalline form of silicon into the long ultra-thin pores of optical fibers. “Traditionally, hydrogenated amorphous silicon is created using an expensive laboratory device known as a plasma reactor” Badding explained. Plasma reactors use Silane - a silicon-hydrogenated compound in the development of optical fiber. The team could not use the plasma reactor as it uses low-pressure and it did not allow Silane molecules to be pushed into the long, thin holes into the optical fiber. The team developed a high-pressure technique that could force the molecules of Silane all the way down into the fiber and then convert them to amorphous hydrogenated silicon. Does it mean we will use more fiber optics in the solar industry with faster and more cost effective solar manufacturing?
Our scientists are racing to find better ways to use solar energy and two research groups recently announced their advances in solar energy. Researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) developed tiny crystals called quantum dots which can capture high energy photons. In conventional solar cells, the photons in sunlight transfer their energy to electrons and the light “excites” the electron to jump from one layer of semiconductors to another to create electricity. Researchers are working on a phenomenon called Multiple Exciton Generation (MEG), to generate more than one electron when the photon strikes a solar cell. Using quantum dots there is a possibility of developing high proton electricity.
I sure hope to see advancements in the solar industry to revolutionize ways we harness light to generate electricity.  I really want to see the solar panel manufacturer by our house do well and succeed.   
Comment on this blog:http://tinyurl.com/bloginspire

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Jupiter

By Brennan Barrington, INSPIRE Online Learning Community

I have always been fascinated by Jupiter. This is probably related to a large astronomy book with huge color pictures of the gas giants which my father would read to me from when I was young. It was an adult-level book; my grandfather had sent it for me to read when I became older, but I wanted to read it right away. So my dad read it for me at bedtime, as I looked at the pictures and text. Of course, I didn't understand very much of the text, even when he read it, but the pictures alone made quite an impression. The pictures which made the strongest impression upon me were those of Jupiter. The sheer bulk of the planet which the pictures conveyed, the color patterns, the Great Red Spot, and the complex diagrams of the planet's interior captured my imagination--in the same way that kids were and are awed and impressed by buried treasure, comic book heroes, or people who they know, things and people which are far away, powerful, and full of excitement, I was awed by Jupiter and its moons. The other planet pictures in the book seemed inferior by comparison, although I did draw a picture of the view from Charon after I heard about Pluto. Some of the pictures were artists' conceptions, and my dad and I labelled the picture in black pen as "an artist's conception of the view from Charon" and described the objects which I had put in the picture--I included the Sun, Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto, in about the right sizes.
   
My fifth grade teacher, Ms. Hunt, took me aside one day. We were about to start a unit about the moon (Luna), its orbit, and its phases. She said, and I agreed, that I already knew all of that, and suggested that I do an alternate project, separate from the rest of the class. I agreed to this, and I decided to create a mobile with Jupiter, its rings, and its moons and write a report about it. I wanted, in fact, to take my own pictures of Jupiter through my dad's old telescope, but it was lost in the office and he did not have time to find it. Jupiter was painted paper-mache, supported by thin wooden rods from a hobby shop. The rings and moons were supported by similar rods. The rings were made of clear tape, and I painted small styrofoam balls from the hobby shop for the moons, using larger ones for the Galilean moons and smaller ones for three others. I did my research thoroughly. The moons were painted correctly and at the right distances relative to one another. The Galilean moon balls were one inch in diameter, and I was careful to inform the class during my presentation that for the mobile to be to scale, the Jupiter sphere would have had to be four feet in diameter (it was closer to two feet--now that I know calculus, I want to calculate the slowed rate of diameter increase which caused be to give up as I approached two feet, as more material was added) and that Europa, for example, would have to be approximately 60 feet from the Jupiter sphere. My Jupiter sphere incorporated the Great Red Spot and the zones of polar calm. I gave an amazing presentation--my teacher and many students were fascinated and told me afterward that I should become a professor. I received an A. Years later, I learned that I had made one mistake: I placed all of the three minor moons at distances beyond Callisto. In fact, Amalthea is closer to Jupiter than Io.
   
I see Jupiter fairly often in winter mornings while waiting for the school bus, just before sunrise. Recently, it has been about 20 degrees up in the western sky, a brilliant, unwavering light.
   
Once when I was seven or eight, my dad brought the telescope mentioned above outside, set it up, and found Jupiter (among other planets). (The telescope was stowed in the office and subsequently lost after this.) The telescope was not powerful enough to reveal color, but I was able to see the bands of Jupiter and several moons. It was another experience that caused my fascination with the planet. 

   
Zeus was king of the gods in Greece, and he was associated with that planet. The Romans, who adopted the Greek religion in most respects but changed the names of most of the gods, called him Jupiter. The mythology of the planet is described in the post "Planetary Name Game" by Cecilia Stoner. Some historians claim that a Chinese astronomer--in the Roman alphabet, Gan De--detected one of the moons of Jupiter without a telescope several hundred years before Christ. Each of the moons is bright enough independently to be seen with the naked eye, but is obscured by the glare of Jupiter. By obscuring Jupiter with an object such as a tree limb, it might have been possible, although his description of the moon as "reddish" is puzzling. Io is the only one of the Galilean moons that is remotely reddish, and it is very unlikely that he saw that one because it is the closest one to Jupiter. It occurred to me as I wrote this that by calculating the positions of Earth and each of Jupiter's moons at that time, it might be possible to determine which of the moons he saw; however, there is not sufficiently precise information about when he made this observation to do this. Gan De also calculated the orbital period of Jupiter. His result was within a week of the modern number. 
   
When the planet finally ceased to be a part of myth in Europe, the fact tore a lot of other myths down with it. When Galileo Galilei
   
Ultimately, he discovered four moons, which were later named Io, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto. He attempted to have them named the Medician satellites, after the family name of a sponsor of his astronomical research, but later astronomers with no interest in Medici termed them the Galilean moons. He also discovered the bands on Jupiter, which went against the idea that everything in the sky was uniform and perfect. Galileo attempted to set up a system of calculating longitude at sea based upon the positions of Jupiter's moons, but it proved impossible to maintain a telescopic fix on Jupiter from a pitching ship deck. The idea would otherwise have worked. 
   
Jean Picard (1620-1682) observed Jupiter extensively with the limited equipment of the time and  used the apparent positions of Jupiter's moons to make an approximate calculation of the speed of light. He was the basis of the fictional character Captain Jean-Luc Picard.
   
However, by the end of the 19th century, we had reached the limit of what could be done with Earth-based telescopes. Fortunately, science fiction of the time began to discuss ways to reach space, and the Space Age began with the launch of Sputnik in 1957.
   
On March 2, 1972, the Pioneer 10 spacecraft was launched. It made its closest encounter to Jupiter, about 50,000 miles from the cloud tops, in December 1973. The NASA web page about Pioneer 10 reads: "During its Jupiter encounter, Pioneer 10 imaged the planet and its moons, and took measurements of Jupiter's magnetosphere, radiation belts, magnetic field, atmosphere, and interior. These measurements of the intense radiation environment near Jupiter were crucial in designing the Voyager and Galileo spacecraft." By the standards of Voyager, the images were small and crude. The probe broadcast various clear pictures of Jupiter from a distance, and detailed, close-range pictures, but the latter were patchy and incomplete because of damage to the probe caused by Jovian radiation. However, for the time, the pictures were incredibly detailed and clear, and the pictures and instrument readings produced an explosion of research and analysis. The probe had equipment which: analyzed magnetic fields, measured solar wind, measured cosmic rays, detected small, nearby asteroids and particulates, and measured the composition and temperature of Jupiter. The probe continued past Jupiter and into space, but its last signal was lost in 2003, long before it reached the heliopause. I have not scratched the surface of the information available about this mission; I recommend http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/missions/archive/pioneer.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_10#Encounter_with_Jupiter.
   
Pioneer 11 was launched on April 5, 1973. Its mission plan included flybys of Jupiter and Saturn. It had similar scientific equipment and took more readings on Jupiter, but the main objective of the mission was information about Saturn. It did determine the mass of Callisto and took a few pictures of Io, but observations of the moons were still almost nonexistent--Pioneer 10 had furnished only a few blurry pictures of the moons. The probe also photographed the poles of Jupiter, which are in a state of perpetual calm, like the eye of a hurricane (this appears as a black spot because of the decreased reflectivity, which I made sure to incorporate in my mobile). It used a Jovian gravity assist to make its encounter with Saturn.
   
The Voyager probes are special to me because most of the gas giant pictures in that astronomy book were from the Voyager probes, and the Voyagers were frequently mentioned in its pages. Each Voyager was in the shape of an elongated 10-faced figure, with a large, dished high gain antenna for transmitting measurements and receiving commands, and was powered by decaying radioisotopes. 
   
Voyager 1 was launched September 5, 1977. It made observations of Jupiter and Saturn. Voyager 1's closest approach to Jupiter was about 128,000 miles from the cloud tops (I apologize for the English units, but I think that the best understanding can be supplied by using units which we are intuitively familiar with). Voyager 1 discovered Jupiter's ring system, which had not been previously discovered because it was tenuous and composed largely of non-reflective dust, as opposed to the icy rings of the other gas giants. It took the first good photographs of the moons. Scientists were awed by the volcanic plumes of Io, intrigued by the craters of Callisto, and were literally rendered speechless as the first pictures of Europa crawled onto the screen. (The silence was broken by: "Lowell was right! Only, the canals are on Europa!") It took various measurements of energetic particles emitted by Jupiter, made infrared spectrometry measurements, received radio emissions from Jupiter (NASA is currently selling to any schools, for about a hundred dollars each, kits to build radio telescopes which can receive radio emissions from Jupiter), measured radiation and cosmic rays (which provided information about the Jovian magnetosphere), and had a polarizing telescope which could get information about atmosphere properties and planetary composition. Voyager 1 is now headed out toward the heliopause, which it may reach before it stops transmitting. A running count of its (and Voyager 2's) current distance from the Earth and the Sun, and the two-way lightspeed delay (to and from Sol), is at http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/. (Don't expect to watch that last number ticking up--it will increase by a second at an interval around 25 minutes (I didn't calculate exactly).)
   
Voyager 2 was launched August 20, 1977. At the time, all of the gas giants were roughly lined up on one side of the solar system in such a way that Voyager 2 was able to make close flybys of all four: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. Voyager 2 made its closest passage 350,000 miles from Jupiter to avoid being deflected from its flight path by Jupiter's gravity, and to make observations of the moons. Voyager 2 transmitted the first detailed pictures of the moons, including massive volcanic plumes shooting up from Io (which a researcher had predicted in a paper published a week before the first Io photos). While Io does not have enough internal heat to be volcanically active, the strong and constantly changing gravitational stress upon Io's core creates an incredible amount of heat. The pictures of Europa showed a surprisingly flat surface, leading scientists to the conclusion that the surfaces photographed were covered in ice, with liquid water below. Of course, there were other explanations, and the Galileo mission was needed to make this theory the consensus. Several new, smaller satellites were discovered by the probe. Voyager 2 is now serving a similar purpose to Voyager 1, although there was an odd glitch in 2010 when the probe began sending back information in an incorrect format. If you have ever attempted to open a file made by a program which your computer does not support, tried to use a notepad, and obtained something like "##129@!49-0ja%%ajkl## ##", that is what the probe was effectively doing. Some people began to speculate that aliens had found the probe and were monkeying with it. NASA eventually traced the problem to a bad bit in the memory, possibly caused by a cosmic ray, and fixed it. Voyager 2 had similar equipment to Voyager 1.
   
The Galileo probe was intended to orbit Jupiter and make better photographs of the moons, among other mission goals. It was equipped with a visible-light camera, IR and UV spectrometers, a radiometer, a magnetometer, a particle measurement system (measuring the size and energy of particles contacted) and instruments for charged particle analysis. After the immensely successful Voyagers, this might seem to be a piece of cake. It was not.
   
Galileo was a mission that seemed jinxed. It went through an incredible list of failures, defects, and confusion; the spacecraft seemed to be determined to single handedly prove Murphy's Law--and O'Toole's correlary to it. At long last, the launch was scheduled: it would be the launch immediately after the Challenger launch in 1986. Of course, the Challenger blew up, causing all launches to be delayed. The probe finally launched on October 18, 1989. It reached Jupiter in December 1995. The ground sent the command to open the high gain antenna, which would be used to transmit  the huge amounts of data that the probe would be able to gather back to Earth. The antenna did not open. Mission Control tried to use rapid acceleration and deceleration of the spacecraft to jerk the antenna open, and then they tried spinning it rapidly. Neither of these plans worked. The low-gain antenna which had been used for commands and telemetry had to be pressed into service to transmit the readings, which it did at a much lower rate than the high-gain antenna could have. This drastically reduced the amount of data that could be gathered. However, the probe almost completely confirmed the existence of a European ocean, measured a magnetic field around Ganymede and the temperature of Io's volcanoes, helped explain the low visibility of the Jovian rings, and indicated that there might be liquid water on Callisto as well. 

Powerful telescopes have recently discovered a huge number of additional moons of Jupiter, some only a few miles in diameter. As of the time when I made that mobile, several years ago, the count was at 63 moons orbiting Jupiter.
     
The Juno probe was launched August 5, 2011. It is now on its way to Jupiter, and will arrive in about five years if all goes well. Its scientific payload includes: infrared and radio radiometers (measuring radio with wavelength 1.3 to 50 cm, or about 23 GHz to 6 GHz), a fluxgate magnetometer, a UV sensor which can block out areas of field to eliminate glare, and an ordinary visible light camera (which is expected to fail well before the other instruments). To protect the systems from Jovian radiation, the electronics and computer systems are sealed within a 1 cm thick titanium box and the final orbit will be highly elliptical to avoid long-term radiation exposure.
   
Jupiter is more massive than all of the other planets combined, but its gravitational acceleration is "only" 24.4 meters per second per second at the cloud tops. This is because it is much less dense than the terrestrial planets. It has a comparatively thin upper atmosphere consisting of hydrogen and helium with clouds of dihydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and ammonium hydrosulfide. Below this are three layers which form the bulk of the planet: a layer of liquid hydrogen (at a very high temperature, but also a very high pressure), a transition zone, and then liquid metallic hydrogen. (The pressure is so immense at that depth that hydrogen can no longer form molecules, and electrons become communal, creating an electron sea. Electron seas are normally only found in solid metals, forming metallic bonds, and that is the reason for the name.) The inner three Galilean moons are in an "orbital resonance", meaning that Europa's orbital period is twice that of Io, and Ganymede's is four times that of Io. Callisto's orbit is becoming closer to 8 times Io's.
   
Future missions to place a lander on Europa and explore its seas for life are under consideration. However, Clarke overestimated--by a lot--human ingenuity and determination. At the height of its first triumph, our progress to the stars was all but halted by the apparent need for inordinate defense spending and a shortsighted government. A manned mission to Jupiter may not happen for another century if current trends continue. However, some unprecedented technological breakthrough--such as controlled fusion, or even wilder possibilities such as controlled wormholes or Casimir effect energy--could shorten that schedule considerably. Some writers have speculated about the possibility of terraforming some of the moons of Jupiter, usually Europa or Ganymede. Whether that is possible or not, permanent bases on Europa (assuming we don't get complaints from the inhabitants that we're invading their territory), Ganymede, and Callisto, and possibly one day cities, could be present by 2150 or earlier. Io and Amalthea are likely to remain uninhabitable for a long time to come. It may be possible to create lighter-than-atmosphere hot hydrogen cities in Jupiter's atmosphere (which would be an interesting reversal of the normal oxygen-hydrogen interaction--oxygen would be the dangerous substance, which explodes in the normal atmosphere and shouldn't have sparks anywhere near it). However, the radiation, and the weight of the shielding that would be required to protect the inhabitants from it, might be prohibitive. But in whatever form, I for one will continue to support the exploration and future settlement of the king of the planets.

Thursday, December 22, 2011

Extreme Survivalists: An Icy Wanderer

By Hannah Mohr, 11th grade

Compared to the objects within our solar system, the sun is hot. Very hot. The sun's corona can reach temperatures of two million degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 million degrees Celsius). So on Thursday, December 15, when a comet flew within 87,000 miles (140,000 kilometers) of our star's surface, most people believed it was a suicide mission and left it at that.

However, the comet known as Lovejoy was not to be so easily forgotten. Researchers, expecting to witness the complete vaporization of a large comet, instead saw Lovejoy emerge from the sun and shoot back into space safe and sound.

Lovejoy is relatively large, with a core about 660 feet (200 meters) wide, and it belongs to the Kreutz class. The Kreutz class of comets is named for 19th-century German astronomer Heinrich Kreutz who first determined that all Kreutz comets are related and came from one huge comet that shattered centuries ago. Kreutz comets also fall under the classification of sungrazers, meaning that their orbits take them dangerously close to the sun.

The entire event might have been missed if Australian amateur astronomer Terry Lovejoy had not noticed the comet's path on November 27th. As it was, scientists had plenty of time to prepare for the comets supposed destruction. Eighteen instruments on five satellites watched the spectacular death-defying event as Lovejoy, essentially a chunk of ice, withstood the impossibly hot temperatures of the sun. NASA even set up a website detailing the progress of Lovejoy, which can be found here: http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/lovejoy.php.

So when it came to a showdown between a chunk of ice and a huge burning ball, the ice survived against terrible odds. Go Lovejoy!
Comment on this blog:http://tinyurl.com/bloginspire

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

The Definition of Inspire

By Niki Tubacki, Grade 11, Mancelona, MI

I am getting my dictionary out. Why? Because at school today one of my friends was arguing with me over the pronunciation of the word ‘inundate’ – my current favorite word for reasons unknown. Therefore, I definitely need my dictionary.

You know, dictionary.com is awesome and all…but I love the feeling of an actual dictionary. Yes, I still have one. Actually three. Don’t ask. But nothing beats opening the covers, turning the actual physical pages looking for an ‘IN…’ word, laughing quietly when you realize you’ve gotten all the way to ‘IR…’, and quickly turning back before anyone sees and tells you to go back to kindergarten.

Anyway, I actually managed to get to ‘inundate’ after a short excursion to ‘irony’ (how ironic). In case you’re wondering, inundate means to flood, and is in fact pronounced how my best friend thought it is. Which, of course, she’ll never find out from me.

Hmm. Well, that wasted about five minutes. Guess I’m done with the dictionary. Let’s flip back through the pages, just for fun. ‘INU’, ‘INT’, ‘INS’…wait a minute.
in-spire’ v. 1 stimulate, as to a creative effort 2 arouse (a feeling) 3 inhale

Well. One is definitely true. We’re all examples of that, right? Look at all of the posts on the discussion board, all of the teams we’ve created for projects, how many points we’ve acquired. It’s amazing. It took effort. It’s stimulating.

Two seems true too (is it just me, or is that a really entertaining sentence?). I don’t know about you, but my curiosity is aroused whenever I look at any page in the OLC. As is my wonder, my competitiveness, my desire to learn, my…

Three. Hmm, this requires a little more thought. I guess when you get down to it, I do take a nice breath when I come into INSPIRE. I love looking at the discussion boards or doing a nice quick activity…it’s a nice break from homework, studying, and more homework.

Well. Fifteen minutes later. But somehow…it seems like longer. That one little definition in my (physical) dictionary has produced more actual thinking than any homework could have. I think I finally realize how much INSPIRE is. It’s not just something to put on our college apps…it’s not just a site to learn more about science, technology, engineering, or math…it’s not just a place to meet other students interested in what we’re interested in. It’s all of those. And so, so much more.

This is my third year in INSPIRE. I’ve done activities, I’ve talked to engineers and astronauts and amazing people, and I’ve met lifelong friends. I’ve even designed a new ISS – just in case, of course. And it – all of it – has been incredible.

in-spire’ v. 1 A community of remarkable students, held together by four interests and a million desires, all inspired and inspiring.

Thank you, INSPIRE staff and students, for two amazing years, half of a third, and hopes of an inspiring fourth.


(INSPIRE would like the Online Learning Community to comment on blog posts by using the link below to the Discussion Board. If you can't find a thread, you may create a new one. Please observe all rules on etiquette.)
Comment on this blog:http://tinyurl.com/bloginspire

Monday, December 19, 2011

J-2X Progress: A New Star on Our Horizon

By William Cooke, MSFC, Ala.

For weeks and weeks (or months and months really), we've been going on and on about the star of our J-2X project, development engine E10001. And there is every reason to focus much of our attention on this first example of our new engine. It has really put on one a heck of a show, generating oodles of data, and we're far from being finished with it.
So, E10001 is unquestionably a star. Beyond this, however, we have other potential stars waiting in the wings. I would liken this situation to "American Idol" except that I've never actually seen that show and, further, all of our test articles are not in competition with each other. Indeed, the whole point of a coordinated and integrated development plan is for all of the test plans and test articles to complement each other. One big star that will soon be making an important contribution is called "PowerPack Assembly 2" (or "PPA2"). Okay, you're saying to yourself: I know what an engine is, but what is a "powerpack assembly"? And, why is this number two? Good questions. We’ll start with the first one…

A powerpack assembly -- or simply a "powerpack" -- is a subset of the total engine. Specifically, it is the engine minus the thrust chamber assembly (i.e., the main injector, main combustion chamber, and nozzle/nozzle extension). About a year ago, I wrote an article here in the J-2X development blog talking about what a gas-generator cycle rocket engine looks like. The schematic of that cycle is shown below for reference and comparison:
Where:
MCC = Main Combustion Chamber
GG = Gas Generator
MFV = Main Fuel Valve
MOV = Main Oxidizer Valve
GGFV = Gas Generator Fuel Valve
GGOV = Gas Generator Oxidizer Valve
OTBV = Oxidizer Turbine Bypass Valve

The lines and arrows in red denote fuel (hydrogen) flow; the green lines and arrows denote oxidizer (oxygen) flow; and the gray lines and arrows denote the flow of combustion products. Using the same abbreviations and same color schemes, here is the schematic for a gas-generator cycle powerpack:
See? As I said, you simply pull off the whole thrust chamber assembly and there you go: powerpack. If you think of the thrust chamber assembly as what you use to make thrust, then the powerpack portion of the engine is what you use to feed the thrust chamber assembly. In other words, to be particular, it's the gas generator, the turbopumps, and the full set of major control valves…plus, of course, the lines and ducts that connect everything together.

What this configuration allows you to do, far more so than the complete engine configuration, is "play games" with turbomachinery conditions and operations. And here's why. On the full engine configuration, you have to feed the thrust chamber assembly a pretty steady diet of fuel and oxidizer. If you deviate too far, things get too hot or too cold or you get too much pressure in the chamber or too little. The thrust chamber assembly is a wonderful piece of equipment, astonishingly robust when functioning in their normal regimes, but it's basically static and, to be honest, a bit persnickety when it comes to significantly off-nominal operations.

So, you first get rid of the persnickety thrust chamber assembly to give yourself more flexibility and then, taking the next step, you get creative with the valves. On the complete engine configuration for flight, the J-2X engine has pneumatically actuated valves. As we've discussed in the past, this means that they have two positions to which they are actuated: open and close. We can't partially open or close them and hold them in intermediate positions thereby altering or directly controlling the propellant flows through the engine. But for powerpack, we're not so constrained. For powerpack, we will use electro-mechanical valve actuators for the two gas generator valves (the GGFV and the GGOV) and we will use hydraulically-actuated facility valves to simulate the two main valves (the MFV and the MOV). All four of these valves will then no longer be simply open/close. They can be held as partially open or closed and, using these as control tools, we can vary temperatures, pressures, and flowrates throughout the powerpack. We can vary the power with which we drive the turbines. We can vary the downstream resistances seen by the pumps thereby altering the flows and pressure-rise profiles through the pumps. The OTBV -- the valve that we normally use to alter engine mixture ratio by applying differential power levels to the two turbines -- will not be actively actuated for the powerpack testing, but it will be configured such that we can alter its fixed, incremental position from test to test. In that manner, we can use the OTBV position variations to explore inlet mixture ratio deviations on powerpack that the full engine configuration simply couldn't tolerate.

Thus, the powerpack assembly configuration is first and foremost (though not exclusively) a test bed for the turbomachinery. Just as with the "bomb test" philosophy discussed in the previous article, we already know that the J-2X engine works, but now we need to further explore the detailed implications of the design. We need to anchor and validate our analytical models, demonstrate operations across the spectrum of boundary conditions and environments, better characterize our margins, and exercise the full slate of design features and operational capabilities. The powerpack assembly test series is one very important means for doing this.

Okay, so it's a useful test article, but where does the actual Powerpack Assembly 2 stand? Well, while we've all been heavily (and appropriately) focused on the testing of J-2X development engine E10001, our contractor, Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, has been also quietly assembling Powerpack Assembly 2 back in the engine assembly area. Here is a picture of the complete Powerpack Assembly 2.
It kind of looks like an engine, almost, doesn't it? Well, that's because we assembled it kind of like an engine but used a "dummy" thrust chamber assembly. You should recognize the yellow thing that looks like a cage. That's the nozzle simulator that we used early on in the assembly of E10001. Sitting on top of the nozzle simulator is a simulated main combustion chamber and a simulated main injector. By making it look so much like a regular J-2X engine, it allows us to install the PowerPack Assembly 2 into the test stand much like we do a regular engine. The only special adaptations are lines to catch the propellants coming out from the pumps and the discharge coming from the turbines. In a regular, full configuration engine all of these flows get routed through the thrust chamber assembly to produce thrust. For PowerPack Assembly 2 testing, these fluid streams are collected and disposed of off of the test stand.

Next is a picture of the PowerPack Assembly 2 being carefully loaded onto the truck to transport it out to the test stand. Road trip!
PowerPack Assembly 2 will be tested on test stand A-1, which is the sister test stand to A-2 where E10001 is currently being tested. Here, below, are a couple of pictures of PowerPack Assembly 2 being lifted onto and then sitting on "the porch" of A-1. In the background you can see a portion of the canals that weave in and around the big test stands at the NASA Stennis Space Center. Nowadays, these canals are mostly used just to transport barges full of propellants. But back in the Apollo era, these canals were used to transport whole rocket stages in and out of the test facilities since they were too big for trucking.

And here, is Power Pack Assembly 2 installed into the test position on stand A-1. Many kudos should be extended to our diligent contractor Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne and our faithful partners at the NASA Stennis Space Center for making this milestone possible. Great work guys!

Now, getting back to that other question regarding the "2" part of "PowerPack Assembly 2." That denotation is simply there because this is the second powerpack assembly we've tested as part of the J-2X development effort. PowerPack Assembly 1 testing was conducted about four years ago using residual hardware from the XRS-2200 (linear aerospike) development project. While that first PowerPack Assembly did not use any true J-2X hardware since that hardware was not yet designed or built, it did help inform the J-2X turbomachinery designs. It used what were essentially J-2S turbopumps to explore J-2X-like operating regimes. The J-2X turbopump designs then began with the J-2S designs and made the changes necessary to fulfill the J-2X mission. Another way of looking at this is that PowerPack Assembly 1 was used to inform the design and PowerPack Assembly 2 will be used to validate and characterize the design. To me, this sounds like a very nice pair of bookends on either side of the J-2X turbomachinery development effort.

Friday, December 16, 2011

LiveChat Roundup: Dec. 15, 2011

By Jim Gerard, INSPIRE Education Specialist, KSC, Fla.

From Wilbur Wright (see last week's LiveChat) to the cutting edge of aeronautics technology, the INSPIRE LiveChat covers it all! Last night's chat with Dr. Thomas Edwards, Associate Director from Ames Research Center, led students through the current research being done to produce safer, cleaner, faster, and quieter aircraft. While much of this research is being conducted using scale models in wind tunnels, a growing segment of testing takes place in the computer utilizing computational fluid dynamics (CFD). 88 students were on hand to hear this informative talk, and to ask questions of our speaker.

Next week, Dryden Flight Research Center's Al Bowers will take us through the science and physics of flight. Sign up now on the Discussion Board. We'll take the next couple weeks off to give our subject matter experts a little break over the holidays, but we will host a special chat on Tuesday, December 27 at 1pm CT. This special chat will host INSPIRE alumni students who will talk about "Life After INSPIRE". Sign up for this special chat on the Discussion Board as well.

Thursday, December 15, 2011

National Star Party

By Jim Gerard, INSPIRE Education Specialist, KSC, FL

Last night, Wednesday, December 14, the INSPIRE Online Learning Community hosted it's first National Star Party. 84 OLC members took time to step outdoors to join together in an observing network that spanned five time zones! Participants worked from an Observation Plan that asked students to record observations of the night sky. Geared toward naked-eye observations, telescopes or binoculars were welcome. Even those who were clouded out contributed to the observations.

After spending time outside, students returned to the OLC to record their observations in a special quiz. This quiz allowed us to tabulate the data, while providing those students with 25 points for their efforts. A LiveChat room was then opened to allow the participating students a chance to virtually share their observations with each other. Students collective built maps by placing icons representing their observations on a map of the US. They were able to see how location could effect some observations, as well as determine the extent of weather systems that prevented some from seeing the night sky. Today, a quiz based on the LiveChat will open for an additional 25 points. We invite any students who was unable to attend the Star Party to watch the archive of the LiveChat and take the quiz for the same 25 points.

One underlying sentiment in the ongoing chat was the desire to do it again. So we'll be looking for another opportunity for a National Star Party. Until then, keep your eye on the sky! These early winter evenings are perfect for getting some quality star gazing in without being out too late.

Here's to clear skies!

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

A Red Moon

By Allan Ko, Grade 11, Fremont, CA

In light of the recent lunar eclipse on Saturday, December 10, here’s a thought: why would the moon turn red during an eclipse as it moves into the Earth’s shadow? One might expect instead that the moon simply turns black and disappears briefly, since there wouldn’t be any light to illuminate it.

This reddening of the moon, it turns out, is due to the effects of the Earth’s atmosphere. This blanket of air actually bends sunlight around the Earth during a lunar eclipse so that some light still strikes the moon to illuminate it, somewhat like a huge lens.

So then, why isn’t the moon white during the eclipse if it’s still illuminated by the sun? This is due to something called Rayleigh scattering. Rayleigh scattering is caused by the individual particles in the atmosphere. When sunlight, which is white light, travels through the atmosphere, these particles tend to scatter the shorter wavelengths of light (such as violet, blue, or green) while allowing the longer wavelengths (like red, orange, and yellow) to pass through relatively unhindered.

Thus, when sunlight bends around the Earth through the atmosphere during an eclipse, the atmosphere scatters to the sides the short-wavelength light and leaves only the red and some orange light on its path to the moon. It is this light that strikes the moon and illuminates it in a beautiful rusty red color.

Incidentally, it’s worth noting that this same Rayleigh scattering is what causes the sky to look blue: some of the blue light scattered away is scattered towards the ground, and we see a wonderful blue sky. This is also the same reason that sunsets are red and orange; the light from the sun has to travel through a lot of atmosphere to reach our eyes (since at sunset, sunlight strikes the Earth at an angle), so most of the other colors of light have been scattered away to leave the picturesque red of the sunset.

(INSPIRE would like the Online Learning Community to comment on blog posts by using the link below to the Discussion Board. If you can't find a thread, you may create a new one. Please observe all rules on etiquette.)
Comment on this blog:http://tinyurl.com/bloginspire

Monday, December 12, 2011

Making a Wish

By Elizabeth Tomsik,  11th Grade

I grew up making a wish every year when I blew out my birthday cake candles and on the rare occasion when I spotted a falling star.   It was shocking, therefore, to learn that a “falling star” has nothing at all to do with a star! These miraculous streaks of light that you can occasionally see in the night sky are caused by tiny bits of dust and rock called meteoroids falling into the Earth’s atmosphere and burning up.


A meteoroid is a piece of stony or metallic debris that travels in outer space. They travel at about 500 feet per second and are about the size of a pebble. When one of these pieces of debris enters the Earth’s atmosphere, friction between the debris and the atmosphere causes it to heat so that it glows and becomes visible to our eyes. This streak of light in the sky is known as a meteor. A meteor glows for only a few seconds before burning up and hitting the Earth’s surface. The remaining bit that actually hits the Earth is called a meteorite.

At certain times of the year, one is more likely to see numerous meteors in the night sky. This happens during meteor showers and these events occur when the Earth passes through a trail of debris left by a comet as it orbits the Sun. The illustration shows how the path of the Earth would intersect with this stream of comet.


Recently I saw eight “falling stars” or meteors in the sky as we were driving late in the night. There are meteor showers are annual events that named based on the constellation that is present in the sky from which they appear to originate. If you would like to see a “falling star” or meteor and “make a wish”, the table shows the approximate dates for one to target to increase your chances of viewing a meteor in the night sky.


Annual Meteor Showers
Name
When They Occur
Quadrantids
January 1-6
April Lyrids
April 19-24
Eta Aquarids
May 1-8
Delta Aquarids
July 15- August 15
Perseids
July 25 - August 18
Orionids
October 16-27
Taurids
October 20-November 30
Leonids
November 15-20
Geminids
December 7-15

Friday, December 9, 2011

LiveChat Roundup: Dec. 8, 2011

By Jim Gerard, INSPIRE Education Specialist, KSC, FL


A very special LiveChat took place last night, as 127 member of the INSPIRE Online Learning Community had an opportunity to hear from and ask questions to Wilbur Wright, one of the brothers who inaugurated the era of modern aeronautics by building and flying the first practical aircraft.

Mr. Wright talked about the research others were doing at the turn of the 20th century that influenced and inspired him and his brother. While not having a college degree, they had self-taught experience that enabled them to leap-frog more learned and better funded contemporaries. The building of their first successful aircraft is a model of perseverance, hard work, and application of the scientific process.  I would recommend any students working on the RealWorl-InWorld Design Challenge or the Conrad Spirit of Innovation Award tune into the archive of this chat. It could be great encouragement to hear that success was only achieved by working through many failures.

Next week, there are three LiveChat events. Our regular Thursday night chat will begin at 8pm CT and feature Tom Edwards, an aerospace engineer from Ames Research Center. Tuesday is a Center Chat with David Alexander from the Dryden Flight Research Center on that center’s history and mission. And on Wednesday, a very special event as we hold our first INSPIRE National Star Party to go outside and observe the sky above. Sign up for all of these chats is available on the Discussion Board.

Thursday, December 8, 2011

A Shadow on the Moon

The next full moon is known as the Cold Moon, the Long Night Moon, or the Moon Before Yule. The moon will be "opposite" the sun at 9:38 a.m. EST on Saturday, Dec. 10. The moon will appear full for about three days around this time, from the evening of Thursday, Dec. 8 through the morning -- and possibly the evening -- of Sunday, Dec. 11.

On Dec.10, the moon will be so "opposite" the sun from the Earth that it will pass through the shadow of the Earth. The Earth's shadow will begin to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the moon at about 6:34 a.m. EST, but the U.S. East Coast will not be able to tell that the moon appears dimmer before it sets at 7:08 a.m. EST. The full shadow of the Earth (called the umbra) does not start to fall on the moon until about 7:46 a.m. EST, well after the moon has set for the U.S. East Coast. Even for the U.S. West Coast, the eclipse will be near moonset, making this a difficult eclipse to view. The extended period with reduced sunlight, including 51 minutes in the full shadow of the Earth, presents a challenging environment for spacecraft at the moon (LRO, the twin GRAIL spacecraft) that rely upon sunlight for heat and solar power. Because the two ARTEMIS spacecraft are in highly elliptical orbits around the moon, it is not clear if or how they will be impacted.

Europeans call the December full moon the Moon before Yule. Yule is an old northern European winter festival that is now associated with Christmas. The Native American names for the full moon in December -- as reported in the Farmer's Almanac -- are the Cold Moon or the Long Night Moon. The Cold Moon gets its name because December is the month when it really starts to get cold, although our coldest average temperatures are in January. The Long Night Moon gets its name because the full moon in December occurs near the solstice, which has the longest night of the year. The full moon takes a high trajectory across the sky because it is opposite to the low sun, so the moon will be above the horizon longer than at other times of the year.
A full moon over Earth, seen by astronaut Ron Garan from the International Space Station. (NASA)

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Astronaut Selection Around the World

By Katherine Denner, 10th Grade, Horsham PA

Last month’s livechat on astronaut selection and training was full of interesting information on how NASA chooses and prepares its astronauts. However, NASA isn’t the world’s only space agency, and I wondered how the other fourteen nations that contributed astronauts to the ISS picked and prepped their astronauts. As it turns out, the training is fairly standard, partly because the Russian Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos) trains European and Japanese astronauts, in addition to its own. Selection, however, can vary quite a bit.

Like in NASA, the European Space Agency (ESA) allows the general public to apply to become an astronaut. Selection is extremely competitive, which is to be expected when you are competing with the citizens of not just one but of eighteen countries! From the thousands of applications received during the last round of applications, 8413 qualified to move further on in the selection process, with just six making the final cut. In comparison, on average NASA selects sixteen astronauts per group, out of a pool of thousands of qualified applicants. In 2009, the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) called for applications to become an astronaut, for the third time in its history. The agency received 5300 applications, from which they chose just two astronauts. The Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) also opens applications to the general public. It did so for the sixth time in 2009, and received just 963 applications – more than any screening before it. After eight months of screening, JAXA initially chose just two of those 963 applicants; a third was chosen five months later.

Unlike the aforementioned agencies, the Chinese National Space Agency (CNSA) does not open applications to the general public, but rather selects its astronauts from a group of 1,500 fighter pilots. CNSA also has unusually stringent health requirements for its candidates, which only about 1% meet. Among other things, Chinese astronauts must not have bad breath, snore, or have a history of serious illness within the last three generations. To think that some of us thought NASA’s requirements were tough!

Sources:
http://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/astronauts/recruitment.asp
http://www.esa.int/esaHS/ESA1RMGBCLC_astronauts_0.html#subhead4
http://www.jaxa.jp/projects/iss_human/astro/index_e.html
http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum32/HTML/000149.html
http://www.china.org.cn/english/msf/77607.htm
http://www.sinodefence.com/astronaut/astronaut-corps.asp
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1203926/Wanted-New-Chinese-astronauts--bad-breath-runny-noses.html

Monday, December 5, 2011

Welcome to the J-2X Doghouse: You Dropped a Bomb on Me, Baby!

By William Cooke, MSFC, Ala.


The Gap Band, 1982!  Yep, just recalling those wise lyrics and the electrofunk music of my youth and I'm up and dancing and strutting around in my office like a goofball.  Luckily, nobody is watching.  So, is there a point to this opening other than imposing on you the painful image of a middle-aged bureaucrat getting down and getting funky in his office?  Yep, there is.  Here it goes:  The next J-2X Engine 10001 will be a bomb test.

You read that correctly: Bomb Test.

Now, I could probably weave a complex and fanciful tale explaining how "bomb test" is really just a creative government euphemism, but we've been straight with each other before, right?  So, the truth is that for this next test we will be mounting into the main combustion chamber a 100% genuine bomb, a small explosive device.  And, yes, we will detonate that device to set off an explosion.
Other than proving once again that we've got a cool job and that we're really like a bunch of 14-year-olds who like to make loud smoke and fire, there is actually a technical reason for doing this.  Way, way back in February, some 20 articles ago (“"-2X Extra: Shiny Metal Pieces"), I briefly mentioned the possibility of combustion instabilities in the gas-generator.  I likened them to the melodious sounds from a pipe organ although combustion instabilities in rocket engines are far, far from melodious.  Indeed, they can be dangerous and destructive.  Our bomb test is a means for characterizing the combustion stability of the J-2X engine.

In order to understand combustion instabilities in a very general way, we have to take about a dozen steps backwards and get to some really basic physics.  The issue comes down to one of natural frequencies and resonance. 


Have you ever tried to push a kid on a swing?  Almost immediately, instinctively, you know that there is a particular rhythm with the swing and if you push in concert with that rhythm, the magnitude of the swinging motion will be increased.  If you try to push at a different rhythm, the kid just kind of sits there in the middle, bobbing around and getting annoyed.  The swing has a natural frequency and if you match that frequency, you get a big response.  That's resonance.  If you fight against it, your energies are dissipated without much else happening.  Everyone can picture that, right?  That's a simple, common, shared experience.  Good.

Next, we're still going to use a rope, but in a little different manner.  In the diagram below, you see someone – i.e., you – holding onto a rope that is secured to a wall.  If you jiggle the rope with no rhythm (i.e., if you jiggle it kind of like how I dance to The Gap Band), not much happens.  It will wiggle and move, but with no organized pattern.  But very quickly, again almost instinctively, you can find the rhythm to make the rope define, back and forth, a single, graceful arc of movement.  With a little practice, you can then jiggle the rope at exactly twice that first speed and get it to make the shape shown in the middle.  And, if you’re really good, you can jiggle it at three times the speed of the first one and get the shapes shown on the bottom. 
If you do this, you will have demonstrated the first, second, and third natural modes of the standing waves for that length and properties of rope.  You cannot get those shapes by inputting any random jiggle on the end.  You have to input a specific forcing function, tuned to a specific frequency, and you will get the desired results.  Your forcing function must resonate with the mode.  Just like with the kid on the swing, if you input the wrong forcing function, nothing much happens.

Another point to consider -- in addition to considering the forcing function -- is that the rope has particular characteristics that define its natural modes.  But anyone who has ever picked up a guitar knows this, right?  Each string is a different thickness, each is pulled tight to a particular tension, and by putting your fingers on different frets, you alter the effective length of the string.  So, each string, when made the correct length and plucked, vibrates in its first natural mode to yield a particular note.  Because the guitar string is fixed on both ends, what you get when you pluck it is like the top picture in the jiggled rope discussion, the first natural mode.

Now, we're going to make the jump from wave shapes in ropes to pressure waves in air.  Imagine rather than a string showing wave patterns, pressure variations in air.  Can't image that?  Okay, then imagine someone talking to you.  Sound travels via fluctuations of pressure in the air.  When you talk, you tighten or loosen your vocal chords, make them vibrate like a guitar string, and sound emanates from that physical vibration turned into pressure variations in the air.  This is the jump from structural vibrations to acoustics but it's still dependent on the notion of waves and frequencies.

Okay, so rather than thinking about your vocal chords, imagine playing a trumpet.  You make your lips vibrate in the mouthpiece and, at certain particular frequencies, you can make the trumpet sing clear, bright notes.  You supply the forcing function; the forcing function matches a natural frequency of the column of air within the trumpet; and you create standing pressure waves that sound like music to everyone in the vicinity.  Quite simple.  And different instruments have different natural frequencies.  A tuba will never sound like a trumpet.  Why?  Because it has a different natural frequency and responds differently to different forcing functions. 

So, we started with a kid on a swing and now we're talking about trumpets and tubas.  And what does any of that have to do with a bomb in a rocket engine?

Let's review.  In our discussion we've learned that things have natural frequencies.  A rope has a natural frequency.  The space within a tuba has a natural frequency.  Everything around you has natural frequencies.  And we've learned that if you input a correct forcing function to a system, we can get organized results by working in conjunction with the natural frequencies.  We can get resonance.  A child swings high on the swing.  A rope makes neato patterns when jiggled.  A trumpet blares a high-C over the cheering crowd.  Okay, so here's the kicker: all this stuff that we've discussed is exactly what we DON’T want to happen in the rocket engine combustion chamber.

Just like any other semi-enclosed space, a combustion chamber has natural frequencies.  These frequencies relate to all three dimensions in space (longitudinal, radial, and circumferential since chambers are typically cylindrical) and to the "stuff" in the space (for a tuba that "stuff" is air, in a combustion chamber it's the propellants and, primarily, the combustion products).  These characteristics together define many, many potential natural frequencies, or modes, where the chamber could "sing."  The forcing function is the combustion itself, which makes lots and lots of noise at many, many different frequencies and at extraordinarily great magnitudes all jumbled together.  So, you have lots of potential modes and lots of very powerful, very high-energy forcing functions.  Should these combine such that one feeds the other, then you could get resonance.  Again, resonance is what happens when you push the kid in the swing at the right rhythm.  But, taken to the extreme, a situation of resonance in an environment like a combustion chamber can continue to grow out of control until it becomes destructive.

Everyone's favorite example of destructive resonance in practice was the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse in 1940.  The bridge was a suspension bridge, which means that it was kind of like a long, heavy, hanging piece of rope made of concrete and steel.  Well, it turns out that when the wind blew across the bridge at the right speed, it excited a natural mode of the hanging roadway.  As the forcing function blew, the bridge oscillated in response, more and more, quite violently, until, ultimately, the structure crumbled into Puget Sound.  These were not tornado-like winds.  They weren’t even unusually high winds.  They just happened to tune into the natural frequency of the bridge and the bridge responded by tearing itself apart.

Lesson:  Big vibrations can be destructive.  The bridge was fine when it was built.  It was fine for several months thereafter.  But when the right forcing function came along, it was disaster.

This is as true in combustion chambers as it is for suspension bridges.  In order to avoid this, we build into combustion chambers such things as acoustic cavities, which are sized cavities that are  tuned so as to damp known natural frequency vibrations should they arise.  We also use physical barriers across the faceplate of the injector so as to disrupt the establishment of radial or circumferential pressure wave patterns.  These are features that we build into the design to help ensure that the space within the combustion chamber is not excited into any organized pattern that could build up to destructive levels.  We simply don't want the chamber to sing.

And this, finally, is where the bomb test comes in.  We use this kind of test to help prove that the features we've included in the combustion chamber do indeed suppress the formation of destructive oscillations.  During the test, we will set off the bomb.  It will act as a broad spectrum forcing function with sudden input of energy.  We need something as extreme as a bomb explosion to perform this energy input because there's already so much energy being released in the combustion chamber.  It's not like we could toot a horn at it and try to find some particular frequency.  That would be like trying to whisper to the person next to you while sitting in the fifth row of a rock concert.  It ain't gonna get through.  So, we set off the bomb and if we have a mode lurking in the chamber that is not sufficiently suppressed by our design features, it ought to poke its head out of the noisy response that follows the explosion.  We will analyze the pressure oscillation and structural vibration data and look for notes that might "sing."  We don’t expect any to be destructive based upon many years of design experience, but even if we identify any that don’t die down quickly we will have cause for further assessment.

To wrap this up, I will use one more image that helps me whenever we talk about "instabilities."  Through the whole discussion here, I've talked about vibrations and oscillations and natural modes and forcing functions and resonance, but what does that have to do with stability or instability? 

In the image above, I have drawn two situations of stability.  In both cases there is a ball sitting at rest between two hills.  For the ball on the left, if you perturb the ball slightly to the left or to the right, it will roll back to the middle and sit there peacefully.  However, for the ball on the right, if I perturb it much in either direction, the ball will crest one of the hills and fall into oblivion.  Thus, both situations shown are stable, but the one on the left is more intrinsically stable than the one on the right.

Similarly, the Tacoma Narrows Bridge was stable when it was built.  But given the right perturbation, it was knocked out of valley of stability and became destructively unstable.  Also, we know that the engine is stable.  We've already run several tests and it's been fine.  While we don't expect anything dramatic or destructive to happen on our upcoming test, this notion of "how stable" is what we're examining with the bomb.  We are using the bomb to knock the ball off the center of the valley and then we'll measure how quickly it comes back to rest, i.e., how deep and steep is the valley of our stability.  This is a measure and demonstration of the robustness of our engine design.

Friday, December 2, 2011

LiveChat Roundup: Dec. 1, 2011

It's been a while since our last LiveChat Roundup, but we took last week off for the Thanksgiving holiday so it's not too bad. Hope your Thanksgiving was a happy one!

Last night, 131 OLC members participated in a LiveChat about the Deep Space Network. Giving the chat was a team of intrepid subject matter experts from the Jet Propulsion laboratory, who braved hurricane force winds, downed trees, and a center evacuation (well, others went home early) to be with us. Ota Lutz from K-12 Education and Chris Jacobs, a Deep Space Navigation Engineer, talked to us about how we communicate with our spacecraft scattered across and to the edge of our Solar System.  It takes big ears, in the form of dish antenna to recover the faint transmissions from these distant craft.
Here are a few of the questions asked and answered after the chat:
Fiona asks: How long does it take for the communications between the Mars rovers by the time the messages have gone from the rover to the orbiter to Earth to JPL to the Mars mission control room? Thank you for doing this chat, I've really enjoyed it.
Communication time with any spacecraft around Mars or any planet depends on the relative distance between Earth and that planet. Typically, for Mars, this time varies between 12 and 20 minutes, one way.

 Rachel asks: You said that voyager is running off of less power than a cellphone; do we use any of that technology now, in cellphones or anything else?
Tons of space technology is used every day here on Earth by every one of us. Check out this website:  http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/ 
Grace asks: What is the future for the DSN? What accomplishments can be expected in the next 20 years?
The DSN in the next few years will move from 8 GHz to 32 GHz in order to increase our capability to receive a greater amount of data. We look forward to learning amazing science from our upcoming missions including the Mars Science Laboratory and Juno.

You can join in on the chat by watching the archive, taking the quiz, and checking out the extra questions and answers in the Discussion Board (look in the Forum 'Chat Talk').  Then, try your hand at building a scale model of a DSN antenna by finding the short activity in the Discover page.

Never been to a chat? Sign up now for next Thursday's LiveChat featuring a special guest: Wilbur Wright will talk about the History of Aviation. It promises to be an interesting evening!

Thursday, December 1, 2011

Dust to Dust

Allan Ko,  Grade 11, Fremont, CA


Genesis 3:19 of the Bible says, “For dust you are, and to dust you will return.” It turns out this is completely true, albeit in a somewhat unexpected sense.

Let's go on a bit of tangent and take a look at stars, the basic powerhouses of the universe. Stars are powered by nuclear fusion, induced by the gargantuan pressures and temperatures in their centers. The conditions are so extreme that electromagnetic repulsive forces between protons (or hydrogen nuclei) in the core are overcome, and the atoms are mashed together in what is called the “proton-proton” process, fusing four protons into a helium nucleus and thereby releasing energy.

The proton-proton process takes place in all stars, but for stars like our Sun, that's pretty much where it stops (for a brief period of time at its death, the Sun will fuse helium into carbon, then fusion will cease and the Sun will essentially die, losing its outer layers and retaining a dense carbon core known as a white dwarf). However, for stars more than eight times the mass of the Sun, pressures and temperatures go so high in the core that they will actually fuse elements as heavy as iron (and numerous elements in between, including neon, magnesium, and silicon).

Fast forward to the end of this massive star's life. The star has become unstable because fusion has almost ceased to generate energy inside the core to support the weight of the outer layers, so the star collapses rapidly inwards under the force of gravity. Ironically, this inward rush of material raises pressures and ignites fusion again, but this time in a runaway process that the star can't stop. The star thus explodes in a spectacular supernova, which packs so much energy that most of the elements heavier than iron are created and then ejected, with the rest of the stellar material, into the surrounding area as “stellar dust.”

What does this have to do with Genesis 3:16? Well, hydrogen and helium are the most common elements in the universe, but clearly a host of other, heavier elements were required to create the Earth and us humans. This means that practically all of the atoms that make up our bodies and the planet we live on (such as silicon, carbon, magnesium, or sulfur) were created via stellar fusion, and then ejected into space when these stars died. Eventually, these elements coalesced again to form our Sun and solar system, enabling mankind's very existence! Moreover, when the Sun dies five billion years from now, the Earth will be broken up as well, and its atoms will in turn be dispersed, to be later formed into new stars and solar systems.

In short: everybody on this planet (and everything) is made of stardust! Maybe magic does exist after all; we just need to find it where it's disguised as science.