Future Moon and Mars Rover Designs

With the problem-free launch of Curiosity, it can be seen that rovers are becoming a widely used robotic technology over probes especially in terms of Mars. I'd like to show two additional rover designs that are also being researched by NASA; the Tumbleweed Rovers, and the Lunar Electric Rover.

A prototype of the tumbleweed rover was test-driven at the South Pole in 2004 where it rolled across the Antarctic for a full 8 days, covering around 70 kilometers of ground. Although on average the temperature of the environment was -30 degrees Celsius, internal heating systems kept the insides of this rover around 30 degrees Celsius. This ball is roughly 6 feet, or almost 2 meters in diameter!

The technology for the next generation vehicle for space exploration, especially made for the environment of the moon is here! The vehicle is proposed to have the lifetime of at least 10 years, where "a habitat on wheels." It is designed to be faster, more capable, and more efficient than the old lunar rover as it would allow astronauts up to 14 days of constant exploration without needing to return back to camp. The new designs that are known as "suit ports" cuts down the time for astronauts to suit up for a space walk ingeniously.  Old spacesuits require 6 hours of simply getting in and out of them for space walks alone, not counting the space walks themselves. These "suit ports" only require approximately 30 minutes, which increases exploration time for astronauts substantially and actually encourages space walks and also allows for more close inspections.
It is exciting to see so many technologies maturing that goes with the establishment of manned bases on other moons or planets. Technological advancements are occurring at such an alarming rate that last generation's dreams can easily be this generation's reality. Unfortunately, because of the constant shift in politics, NASA has been bouncing back and forth between establishing a lunar base or sending astronauts to Mars. But it won't be surprising if NASA's lunar "base" is one that's on wheels.

Like the picture shown in the above, it is likely for the first lunar bases to be mostly constructed with lunar electric rovers and perhaps made to be easily maneuverable; nothing near a full-blown establishment of colonies. But perhaps in the near future and perhaps even within our own lifetimes, with international coordination, a permanent base may be constructed on the surface of the moon!

The Grander Scale of Theoretical Habitable Zones

(http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/NatSci102/lectures/habzone.htm)

The 'Habitable Zone,' also known as the 'Goldilocks Zone' is a specific distance to a particular star type where the conditions for liquid water exists, and thus therefore may also have the perfect conditions for life. This theory was spurred by the idea that "our world is a typical rocky planet in a typical planetary system." Taking it further, a new concept, first proposed by Guillermo Gonzalez in 1991, is letting scientists think in a much larger proportions; on a galactic scale.

(http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/G/galactic_habitable_zone.html)

The Milky Way Galaxy is structured similarly to billions of other spiral galaxies in the universe. There has been many revisions of this theory, all of which are less taken into account than the current goldilocks zone which only finds habitable zones from a solar system point of view. One of these revisions based a Galactic Habitable Zone (GHZ) off three factors: supernovae rates, the abundance of metal elements (which is required for the development of rocky planets), and time taken for complex life to evolve. This GHZ insists that although greater star density meant the increase in likelihood of dangerous proximity of supernovae and higher levels of radiation that could exterminate life, the possibility of finding life closer to the galactic circle is 10 times more likely than in the outer galaxy. This is because historically the greatest amount of star formation has occurred in the inner region of the galaxy, and thus has a much higher possibility of finding rocky planets in those solar systems.

(http://amandabauer.blogspot.com/2008/05/living-on-another-planet.html)

However, supernovas seem to be the largest impeding factor from allowing planets from forming life and complex organisms. It has been calculated that in our lifetime, the majority of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy are blasted by radiation and supernovas and only 30% of all the stars in the galaxy remained unscathed and untouched by these deadly forces. One must keep in mind that a human lifetime is not long, and the percentage of stars untouched by deadly radiation will significantly decrease over time. This could be one of the major factors why Earth is quite far from the galactic center. Thus one can see that the GHZ doesn't show where a region of the galaxy is uninhabitable or not, but merely shows these regions to be more likely inhabitable than others. This theory contradicts the last theory of the Galactic Habitable Zone where it is insisted that the GHZ is a belt between distances 22,800 light years (7 kiloparsecs) and 29,300 light years (9 kiloparsecs) from the galactic center.

(http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/weirdastronomy.php)

Although the newest model of the Galactic Habitable Zones proposes that life is more likely in near the galactic center and thus has directed the Search for Extraterrestial Intelligence (SETI) to target that location more thoroughly, there are still many assumptions and factors this model has not compensated for. The gravitational effects of nearby stars to solar systems within the inner galactic circle due to the close proximity of stars from each other would make star's habitable zones hectic (creating perturbed orbits). Some scientists believe that the current Galactical Habitable Zone model is one of the most complete studies of GHZ to date. Although I believe we are far from creating a working model of our galaxy's GHZ that is as accurate and specific as the solar system habitable zones that we currently follow, it may still lead to new insight and understanding to planet forming locations.

Our Moon is Not So Special Afterall!

The foremost theory of the formation of our Moon is the giant impact model where most likely a "Mars-sized" body impacted the early Earth, causing the release of dust that originated from the Earth's surface into space. This dust later slowly accreted to form the Moon as we know it. Our moon was first thought of as the only satellite that formed from a giant impact on the planet it is orbiting. Recent evidence suggests that Phobos, one of Mars' moons may be the cause of a similar giant impact of Mars!

Such a conclusion was derived from measurements originating from the European Space Agency's (ESA) Mars Express and NASA's Mars Global Surveyor missions. Mar's two moons, Phobos and Deimos have always been under scrutiny due to their questionable origins. Mars does not have the gravity capable of capturing asteroids from the asteroid belt, yet these two moons with asteroid like appearances are orbiting Mars. The alternative scenario is that both moons reaccreted after a major impact similar to our moon's giant impact theory .

(Mars Express, ESA, http://news.softpedia.com/newsImage/MARSIS-Probes-the-Ionosphere-2.jpg/)

(Mars Global Surveyor, NASA, http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/technology/orbiters/orbiters01.html)

Observations have shown that the type of minerals that compose these two moons are very similar to the minerals found on Mars' surface as well. Not to mention it is also observed that these two moons have a high porosity, in which 25-45 percent of for example, Phobos' interior is most likely made up voids within sponge like structures. Because of this high porosity, scientists believe that an asteroid with such high porosity would not survive being captured by Mars as the gravity from Mars would rip the asteroid into dust. Instead this high porosity suggests re-accretion where the largest blocks of mass re-accreted first while smaller debris re-accreted by themselves and due to the low gravity of these moons, when these different sized blocks came together, these gaps were never filled in. Thus this supports the theory that Phobos was caused by a giant impact theory.

(A picture of Phobos from the Mars Express, http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Phobos_MarsExpress1.png)

To test this theory, the Russian Space Agency have came up with "a bold mission to Mars." They are sending the Phobos-Grunt interplanetary spacecraft, the first of its kind, from Earth to Mars, and back to Earth! Phobos-Grunt will not just attempt the first landing on Phobos, it will also be the first to return soil samples from that moon as well, which hopefully may help scientists understand the formation or the origin of Phobos and Deimons. The spacecraft will also be carrying the Yinghou-1 Mars Orbiter, a mini-satellite built by China (and is also the first probe China has ever sent to Mars). Yinghou-1 is a 110kg satellite that will study Mars' magnetic field, gravity field, and surface environment for a year after jettisoning off Phobos-Grunt when the spacecraft is near Mars' orbit.  This is also the first time research is done by "two spacecrafts simultaneously."

(A Russian mission poster for Phobos-Grunt, http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/fobos_00.jpg)

(The entire spacecraft while en-route to Mars, http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/general_annotated_1.jpg)

(Phobos-Grunt after landing, http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/spacecraft2_gb.png)

(Shows the return vehicle launching off Phobos-Grunt, http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/elements_spacecraft21.png)

What's so exciting is about this Russian spacecraft is its audacious plan to return 200grams of soil samples from Phobos for analysis. It is predicted that only the top part of the entire spacecraft (the return vehicle from the picture above) will return by August 2014. The entire Phobos-Grunt spacecraft is equipped with two robotic arms, and 15 scientific instruments which includes lasers, spectrometers, cameras, and even a microscope. The launch date for Phobos-Grunt is not set, but should be sometime at around November 7th, 2011. Hopefully the Russian Space Agency will set a suitable time before November 25th, because the launch window for Mars is from November 5th to November 25th. Without managing to finish this spacecraft within this window of opportunity, the Russian Space Agency will be forced to wait for years for Mars' orbit to be in an opportune location for another Earth and Mars close proximity launch.

(The mission scenario of Phobos-Grunt, http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/mission_2011_gb1.png)

If this mission goes successfully, scientists will acquire the first soil specimen from the region of Mars. Not to mention, this mission may also encourage the use of mini-satellites as it shows that by piggybacking on other larger spacecrafts, flight launches and costs are very minimal for such satellites. The Phobos-Grunt and Curiosity not only show that robotic technology has increased substantially over the last few decades, but it also brings in the question of NASA's development of manned flights to Mars and if such decisions are cost effective, and not to mention reasonable when robotic interplanetary flights can do so much already. If we have the technology to bring back soil specimens from Mars' moons and perhaps Mars itself, is there a need for us to send manned flights to Mars? I do hope NASA's decision to do so is more based on the pursuit of scientific knowledge than merely showing off that they are still ahead of the space race. With that said, I do support the NASA's funding in developing interplanetary transportation as there is no doubt benefits for mankind for developing such technologies!

Curiosity, More than Just a Mars Rover

Curiosity is the NASA's next Mars rover. It is also known as the Curiosity Mars Science Laboratory. The main problem for most rovers on Mars is that there is a limited ability for those rovers to analyze the actual composition and complex organic molecules. Luckily Curiosity's name as a Mars Science Laboratory is not just for show! This 2.5 billion dollar, 3 meter long robot with the width as large as a car, is five times the weight of previous rovers. Here is a picture comparison between the most recently sent twin rovers, Spirit/Opportunity, and Curiosity.

(http://flyingsinger.blogspot.com/2009/05/sojourner-spirit-opportunity-curiosity.html)

Curiosity is essentially the size of a car while Spirit/Opportunity is the size of a golf cart. The picture merely gives an idea of Curiosity's size compared to past rovers and thus the context here (which is on Mars) is not truthful! Due to the size of Curiosity, NASA is using a different landing procedure than previous rovers. This new landing procedure is not just more sophisticated, but it is also more safe for the rover if it goes off without a problem. A video with excellent commentary here shows this new sky crane landing system and also other features of Curiosity that makes it a science laboratory!

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIpFgump7so&feature=player_embedded)

This clip really shows why Curiosity is by far the "most scientifically advanced robot rover" ever to be sent beyond Earth. Compared to the old methods of landing rovers like by sticking them into very soft cushioned beach-balls and literally let it bounce on the surface of Mars until it stops, this sky crane landing system seems like a few generations ahead in technology. Curiosity's 10 science instruments will be crucial in allowing the rover to search for evidence of microbial life and also chemical ingredients for life on Mars. One of the most unique instruments Curiosity has is an actual laser that is meant to "look inside rocks and release the gasses" so that its spectrometer can analyze the composition of predicted ancient bedrocks. In the video in the above, it also shows that Curiosity carries an on-board scientific lab that can analyze rocks and sand collected by its drill. Without a doubt, Curiosity is probably as close to robotic ways of doing anthropology on Mars as we will ever get until NASA actually sends manned anthropology teams to Mars to dig and search for dead or currently living lifeforms.

The power supply of the Curiosity is made of plutonium dioxide and is predicted to "significantly enhance" the driving range, scientific capability, and working lifetime of Curiosity compared to solar powered rovers like Spirit and Opportunity.

(http://www.universetoday.com/90397/closing-the-clamshell-on-a-martian-curiosity/)

Curiosity is scheduled to launch on November 25th, 2011 from Cape Canaveral, Florida on an Atlas V rocket. It is anticipated that Curiosity and its on board science laboratory will change our very understanding of Mars and hopefully provide some conclusive proof that life could have, and perhaps even did exist on Mars in the past! Here is a cool time lapse video of NASA's Curiosity rover being packed up for a trip down to Florida for its near future launch.

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=reK2wZ6_ArM)

The video covers the work of "a period of four days" in one minute. I truly hope that Curiosity does get to Mars in good condition, as I also look forward to its contribution in the future to our understanding of the nearby (astronomically speaking) red planet!

Who Needs R2D2? We Now Have Robonaut!

Lets face it. Space is not a friendly place to be for most, if not any, living organisms. This is one of the reasons why probe missions are favored by NASA over manned missions, especially on long distance journeys. Surprisingly, we humans actually require a lot more maintenance, in the form of food, workouts, and healthy life style to be efficient and productive compared to our robotic counterparts. Despite recent increases in movies that depict human-created robots overthrowing their previous masters, NASA has gone through great measures to produce the state of the art robots that would ultimately assist astronauts on space missions and also in the international space station. This emphasis on robotic technology is astute because human lives are irreplaceable due to the amount of training each human must undergo to become an astronaut, while robots are more replaceable. Situations like space walks that has always posed a big risk for astronauts will be decreased almost completely if smart robots can take on the job.

NASA recently developed Robonaut 2, also known as R2 (which seems really similar to R2D2). It is a "dexterous humanoid robot" that is meant to take over simple and dangerous tasks on space missions. On February 24th, 2011, the last Discovery shuttle flight before the shuttle was decommissioned took a Robonaut 2 into space and on board the International Space Station. This marks the first humanoid robot to be in space, and within the International Space Station. Right now there are four operational Robonaut 2s, with many others still in development. These robots were specifically made to be humanoids because only by having human-like physiology will equipment and tools used by robots and humans be interchangeable and thus simpler to produce and replace.

(http://www.space.com/10772-robonaut-2-nasa-space-droid-details.html)

(http://www.space.com/12698-space-station-robot-robonaut-2-power-tests.html)

The implications of the technology of robots, which is the decrease in risk for any humans in any dangerous situation or task, gives the technology much attention from "both military and space" agencies all across the world. This means the amount of funding and support for developing such technologies is very high. It is already predicted that perhaps by 2040, robotic intelligence may start to encroach to human levels. It does make me wonder if the science fiction shows and movies about robots rebelling against humans could become a reality. On the bright side, no doubt better robotic technology will help in our search for life in the universe!

Complex Organic Molecules: More Prevalent Than Previously Thought!

Complex organic molecules have always been conceived as originating from comets. After sending numerous probes to not just detect but also send actual specimens of comets back down to Earth, it has been confirmed that there are complex organic molecules within comets. In fact, it is theorized that complex organic molecules are the "dark surface material" of comets! Due to the high concentration of complex organic molecules within comets, scientists also believe that it is due to this fact that the Earth contained complex organic molecules within its primordial soup over 4 billion years ago, that life was able to develop on Earth. The theory was that comets carrying "payloads of organic material" crashed into the Earth's surface, increasing the amount of organic material (and of course increasing the amount of H2O as well)already present on the planet which led to the rise of life.

(http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Comets)

However, scientists have found that complex organic molecules of "high density" exist throughout the entire universe. The source of complex organic molecules must be from a more powerful, and much more common source. Very recently, scientists have uncovered stars as having the capacity of producing complex organic material! Although the actual process of producing them is still unknown to us, it has been confirmed that the star's infrared emissions (by using the Infrared Space Observatory and the Spitzer Space Telescope) that were thought to represent polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon molecules (PAHs) actually was complex organic molecules in the first place! This helps to explain why so many solar nebula are also known to contain large amounts of complex organic molecules. Because countless stars go supernova, this helps spread the seeds of life into the entire universe.

(http://my-blackberry.net/49__Ingredients_for_Life_-_Complex_Organic_Molecules.htm)

This new information will add to the importance of stars, and their contribution to the production of life. This brings in a point that I thought of immediately after reading this article about complex organic molecules originating from stars. It seems like the older the universe gets, the higher the chance for life to occur across the universe. This is because the longer time passes by, the amount of stars that have gone through supernova since the time of the big bang will continue to increase and therefore increasingly release produced heavier elements (which help to form rocky planets like the first 4 planets in our solar system), and complex organic molecules (which contribute in forming carbon based lifeforms). Perhaps unfortunately life on Earth, due to absurd probability, accidentally formed life when the composition of the universe is not 'mature' enough for life. Perhaps the universe needs to undergo a few more billion years for life, and rocky planets like Earth, to be plentiful, and thus making us quite alone for now in this still 'immature' universe.

Life on Mars, and Missing Factors that Allows for Life on Mars!

Because so many fellow classmates have posted blog posts about the meteorite from Mars in Antarctica and its implications, and the possibility of Mars sustaining and retaining life, I shall also do one of my own in hopes to answer some of the questions they have left behind and come up with questions of my own! Life on Mars for us seems to be a highly skeptical topic, but for Penelope Boston, a scientist that has worked with extreme lifeforms on Earth, she has in fact very high hopes for discovering life on Mars! Here is a video of her point of view!

Despite her optimistic beliefs that there is 25-50% chance that there is life on Mars, I disagree with her claim that life is a "natural outgrowth of evolution of matter." Certainly this is the premier theory of life's origins but it is one that is barely supported. To assume that matter can evolve from a state of unawareness to self-awareness is like saying early, primitive computers can evolve their own artificial intelligence and self-awareness without the help of human programmers. Thus I would criticize that 'evolution' is probably the biggest understatement I've ever come across when it is used to define the transformation from inorganic chemistry to biological cells! I personally doubt that biochemists can create artificial life, especially without a full understanding of the requirements that fuel this process of changing nonliving matter into living matter. However, this does not mean that there is no life on Mars. Although Penelope Boston is highly confident in the chances of finding life on Mars(and she IS an expert on extreme organisms on Earth), I'd say that without knowing the process of how matter transforms from nonliving to living, it is impossible to say if Mars fits the requirements of such transformations. So even if Mars had the environment to sustain life, perhaps unfortunately Mars did not have the requirements to bring life into existence in the first place. Thus Mars' ability to support life does not have any relevance to Mars actually having/have had life existing on it! Of course, these assumptions of mine are based on the theory that life can only exist if they were transformed from nonliving matter to living matter on a specific planet. If astronomers are able to provide support for the case that life is seeded from one planet that is teeming with life, to another through meteorites and other modes of natural transportation, that may provide an adequate explanation if life on Mars is validated to be true. On the other hand, if it is ever conclusive that life is on Mars, another adequate explanation for such an event is that perhaps Mars met the requirements, whatever these requirements are, for life to transform from nonliving matter into self-aware living cells.

Another way of guessing if life was ever on Mars is by seeing if all factors that are required to sustain life (as we know it on Earth) is or was present on Mars. As Science-Nut pointed out on the "Is there Possibility for Life on Mars" blog entry, it seems that Mars doesn't have a magnetic field strong enough to protect the entire planet from solar winds, flares, and deadly meteoroids. Without a dense atmosphere, meteoroids of the same size would cause much deadlier explosions on Mars compared to Earth because Earth's atmosphere causes friction from dense molecules which may burn full meteoroids into crisp (shooting stars), or even reduce the meteoroids' size before it impacts the Earth's surface. Mars' lack of magnetic fields is actually an anomaly within our solar system. As this article from Nasa shows, Earth, "Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune all have magnetospheres" and only Mercury's magnetic field is smaller than Earth's (and for good reason due to Mercury's relative size to Earth's!) Venus, which does not have a global magnetic field is an understandable exception due to the fact that magnets "lose magnetism" from exposure to heat. Being the hottest planet in the solar system, this allows Venus to pass the buck. However, Mars' climate is nowhere close enough to be understood in the same way as Venus. Recent studies provided in this article show a possible explanation: perhaps giant asteroids that impacted Mars in the past may have crippled the planet's magnetic field. On another note that has a more direct impact on question of life on Mars, is that this article also shows that recent data indicates that Mars' global magnetic field disappeared just when Mars became 500 million years old. This perhaps may decrease the chance of finding life on Mars greatly, be it dead remains and or existing life! Present studies (from this website) show that it took Earth about 1 billion years for the first lifeforms to form. This would mean that maybe before life ever existed on Mars, Mars lost its magnetic field which rendered the planet unlivable because solar winds would blow away the atmosphere of Mars and lethal solar radiation would hit the planet's surface mercilessly. 
Although I do hope that there is life on Mars, unfortunately present data indicates that there is more chance for Mars to only have nonliving matter than having life or remnants of life.

There is still so much about the nature of life that we as humans have no clue of. Our educated guesses unfortunately may still be distant from the actual truth of what is necessary for life to "evolve" from inorganic matter.