3. The Mars Observer was destroyed, only we didn’t do it. The craft, like so many before it that were never heard from again, was knocked out of commission by nervous Martians who were afraid we would see too much. (So why have they let us see this much?)
No rational individual could seriously believe or hope that we are alone in this vast universe. While the discovery of an ancient civilization on Mars would be the greatest discovery of all time, jumping to irrational conclusions will never help the credibility (or funding) of research into this possibility.
The controversy should have been solved in April of 1998, when the Mars Global Surveyor took a much more detailed image of the Martian enigma. The higher resolution image clearly showed that the face was a natural mesa or butte, similar to those throughout America’s western landscapes. Critics, however, said the photo was taken on a cloudy day and obscured the Martian-made details.
Once again in 2001, NASA obliged the conspiracy-crazed public and took another image. This photo had a resolution of 1.56 meters per pixel, which was a vast improvement over the 43 meters per pixel in the original 1976 Viking image. To the dismay of the pro-face community, the picture revealed a weathered lump of rock and dirt, with no signs of alien intervention. No pyramids, no water tanks, nothing but naturally formed features.
However, let’s face the real facts. As history has repeatedly shown, no amount of evidence will ever convince the adamant skeptic, as no amount of debunking could ever daunt the firm believer.
If there is a lost civilization on Mars, it would come as no surprise to discover that its demise was the result of one group of stubborn Martians fighting with an equally intractable group of obstinate Martians holding opposing views. But hey, isn’t that what life is all about?
The high resolution image of
the Face on Mars, which
shows no face on Mars.
“There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.”
Ken Olson, president, chairman, and
founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977
Star War?
HERE MEN FROM THE PLANET EARTH
FIRST SET FOOT UPON THE MOON
JULY 1969 A.D.
WE CAME IN PEACE FOR ALL MANKIND
These were the words on a plaque that was on the leg of the Apollo 11 lunar lander. A noble sentiment, indeed, and it’s a pity that this notion of peace was not shared by everyone who ventured into space.
In the 1950s, competition with the Soviets had given birth to the space race. From the instant Sputnik was launched until the moment Neil Armstrong stepped onto the Moon’s surface, the desire to be the first nation to claim the glory of the successive achievements was intense.
However, on July 17, 1975, when the joint Apollo-Soyuz mission saw astronaut Tom Stafford and cosmonaut Alexei Leonov shake hands in space and smile for the cameras, it was supposed to be the culmination of five years of cooperation and planning, and usher in a new age of mutual trust. (Sounded good on paper, even if both countries still had bundles of nuclear warheads pointed at one another.)
Apparently, though, reality was a bit different. The veil of secrecy that had shrouded many of the missions in the Soviet space program finally began to lift in the 1990s, and a startling discovery was made about their space station Salyut 3, which was in orbit from June, 1974, to January, 1975. Like a celestial battle ship, Salyut 3 packed some serious hardware, in the form of a Nudelman-Rikhter 23mm rapid-fire cannon! (Or possibly a 30mm version, but that’s not the point.) This machine gun was affixed to the hull of the station “for defense against U.S. space-based inspectors/interceptors.”
Were they actually afraid that American space pirates were going to board their station and then blast off with a treasure of stolen technology?
Can you just imagine:
“Houston, this is Blackbeard One. We have scuttled the Soviet station. Arrrgh. Over.”
“Roger that, Blackbeard One. Crack open a flagon of Tang to celebrate a job well done.”
What the Soviets should have feared was actually firing a machine gun that’s bolted to the hull of your space station. There’s the small matter of Newton’s Third Law of Motion—for every action there’s an equal and opposite reaction—and the recoil of a 23mm cannon could wreak havoc on one’s orbital trajectory. There were claims that special anti-recoil engines had been installed to compensate and that there had been several successful test firings, but even a slight error could have dire consequences in more than one direction:
1. Leaving orbit and heading into outer space to face a freezing death.
2. Leaving orbit and entering the earth’s atmosphere to face a burning death.
Orbital death spirals aside, there was still the matter of the practical aspects of the machine gun. It was not mounted on a turret or other rotating device, so the only way to aim the thing was to point the entire space station toward the evil American invaders while looking through a periscope trying to line up the target.
As cosmonauts also carried pistols, perhaps it would have been easier to simply knock out a window and start shooting!
Today, the International Space Station is a symbol of true cooperation among nations, but let us not be fooled by this one shining example. Space is bristling with military hardware, and while it is unlikely that satellites are toting machine guns, they probably have technology far more deadly.
So perhaps in retrospect, we should applaud the former Soviet Union for its foresight in arming its space vehicles. As mankind reaches farther into space, we are truly shooting for the stars, in more ways than one…
Deep Disturbance
One of NASA’s boldest plans and greatest successes came to fruition on July 4, 2005, when a copper-tipped probe slammed into the surface of Comet Tempel 1. The mission, known as Deep Impact, had to send the spacecraft on a precise intercept course to catch the moving comet and strike it with the probe—all at a distance of 83 million miles from Earth. Talk about threading a needle on an interplanetary scale!
In addition to providing some spectacular fireworks for astronomers and the Deep Impact scientists on the Fourth of July, the team has been able to analyze the data collected from the cometary explosion, which has resulted in some important discoveries. They found both water ice and organic material (crucial ingredients for life as we know it), and were also able to determine from the composition of the comet that it most likely originated in the region of Uranus and Neptune.
Remarkable stuff! So who could possibly object to this triumph of science? And why would anyone want to file a lawsuit against NASA because of the project?
Try a Russian astrologer, one Marina Bai, who claimed that punching a crater into the surface of the Tempel 1 comet would do nothing less than “disrupt the natural balance of the universe.” And for this great offense, Bai wanted to be compensated to the tune of $300 million!
The astrologer’s lawyer stated, “My client believes that the NASA project infringes upon her spiritual and life values as well as the natural life of the cosmos and would disrupt the natural balance of forces in the universe.” Remarkably, a Russian court approved the first step in the angry astrologer’s quest for more money than the entire Deep Impact project cost.
The case commenced in Moscow in September of 2005, but was dismissed when physicist Vladimir Fortov asserted that the collision didn’t have the slightest effect on the Earth, and that “the change to the orbit of the comet after the collision was only about 10cm”—or about $300 million short of creating a deep disturbance.
Bright points in the sky or a blow on the head will equally cause one to see stars
Percival Lowell, Mars, 1895
It Doesn’t Take a Rocket Scientist…
Against stupidity the very gods
Themselves contend in vain.
-Schiller
A ten-year-old child would know better than to load old operating software into a new computer system. Unfortunately for the European Space Agen
cy, they did not have any ten-year-olds on their review committees for the Ariane-5 rocket. If they had, perhaps the maiden flight would not have ended in disaster.
Like the Ariane-4, its reliable predecessor, Ariane-5 was the product of Arianespace, a commercial company established in 1980. After a decade of research and development and expenditures exceeding $8 billion, the new rocket was supposed to revolutionize the satellite industry by doing more while costing less; truly a rare feat in the modern world.
What massive catastrophe brought down the mighty rocket? Was it sabotage? Was it severe weather conditions? Was it a freak accident that never could have been prevented?
Or, could it possibly be that they loaded the old software from Ariane-4 into Ariane-5, and then didn’t bother to test it on all the new systems? Could anyone possibly make that kind of mistake with $8 billion dollars and lifetimes of work on the line? Incredibly, yes.
At 12:33 GMT, on June 4, 1996, the unmanned Ariane-5 was launched from the European Space Agency’s facility in Kourou, French Guiana. The first 37 seconds after ignition looked flawless. Suddenly, at an altitude of 3,700 meters, the rocket veered sharply. The stress began to tear it apart and to protect lives on the ground, the self-destruct system blew Ariane-5 to bits.
To make matters worse, Ariane-5 was carrying the Cluster project—four satellites designed to study the sun’s effects on the Earth’s climate. The project had employed over 500 scientists working over a span of ten years, at a cost of $500 million.
Nothing had been insured.
Technically, the disaster occurred because two computers (Inertial Reference Systems) used to guide the rocket shut themselves down due to a software error: the computers’ inability to convert a 64-bit floating point to a 16-bit signed integer value. In the words of the official report of the Inquiry Board, the old Ariane-4 software that caused the error actually “serves no purpose” on the new Ariane-5 after launch, and never should have been active.
In simple terms, the wrong software operated at the wrong time and sent the wrong information. (And in even simpler terms for those who are truly technically challenged: software bad, make big stupid mistake, make rocket go BOOM!)
Among the Inquiry Board’s brilliant recommendations were to “Review all flight software” in the future, turn off anything that isn’t needed, and test all systems with “realistic input data.” Duh. One shudders to think what the original testing protocol required. Perhaps such crucial things as, “Make sure there are no pieces left over after you put the rocket together” or “Never test today what you can blow up tomorrow.”
The conquest of space is truly one of mankind’s greatest endeavors, and no undertaking of this magnitude can be expected to be without disasters. However, in the painful light of colossal blunders such as Ariane-5 and the Hubble Space Telescope, perhaps a simple motto should be sown onto the lab coats of all the project scientists: “Try it before you fly it!”
Have You Ever Been Plutoed?
For many years, the search for a ninth planet yielded nothing, until Clyde Tombaugh finally found it in 1930. Named Pluto, generations of students grew up reciting the nine planets in our solar system. Unfortunately, even planetary families have an occasional falling out, and this runt of the litter was destined to be kicked to the astronomical curb.
On August 24, 2006, the International Astronomical Union created a new definition of a planet, and due to its diminutive size, Pluto didn’t make the grade. This created quite a stir amongst scientists and the general public, who didn’t take kindly to having one of their planets taken away. However, the solar system’s loss turned out to be the English language’s gain.
In 2006, the word of the year selected by the American Dialect Society was “plutoed”—meaning to “demote or devalue someone or something.” It has become a popular phrase, especially amongst students, that when you have been taken down a peg you have officially “been plutoed.” While the former ninth planet may not be as big as the rest of its siblings, no other planet from Mercury to Neptune can claim to be so trendy!
Robert Goddard built and launched the first liquid-fueled rocket on March 16, 1926. In his writings, he suggested the possibility of sending a rocket to the Moon. How did the press treat this brilliant “Father of Rocketry”? With ridicule, of course:
“That Professor Goddard, with his 'chair' in Clark College and the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution, does not know the relation of action to reaction, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react - to say that would be absurd. Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools.”
New York Times, January 13, 1920
The New York Times did not issue a correction until Apollo 11 was on the way to the Moon!
“Further investigation and experimentation have confirmed the findings of Isaac Newton in the 17th Century and it is now definitely established that a rocket can function in a vacuum as well as in an atmosphere. The Times regrets the error.”
NYT, July 17, 1969
Hubble, Hubble, Toil and Trouble
(A tragedy of Shakespearean proportions.)
Background: The optics company Perkin-Elmer ground the mirror of the Hubble Space Telescope, but had incorrectly assembled a device called a null corrector that was used to measure the mirror’s critical shape. Two properly functioning null correctors accurately indicated the mirror was not shaped right, but they ignored those results. Only after the telescope was launched in 1990 did the error literally come to light as the world gasped at Hubble’s blurry images. A service mission of the shuttle Endeavor was launched in 1993 to repair the defective optics.
ACT 1
Scene I- A deserted alley behind Perkin-Elmer, Danbury, Connecticut, early 1980s.
Thunder and lightning. Enter three optical engineers.
First Engineer When shall we three meet again
In thunder, lightning, or the
appropriations subcommittee inquiry?
Second Engineer When the hurlyburly’s done,
When the mirror’s lost and won.
Third Engineer A decade at least then, til the
Endeavor’s had its run.
The three join hands and circle a dumpster.
All Fair is foul, and foul is fair;
If they don't test it,
They must not care.
In Conclusion:
The Mother of All Bad Space Travel
(or Lack Thereof)
I have been cheated. I have been robbed, sold a bill of goods, been led down the primrose path, only to have my hopes and dreams ground down under the heel of ignorance.
When I was a kid, I had astronomical charts on my bedroom walls, built models of rockets, and couldn’t get enough of all things related to outer space. I was riveted to the television the night Neil Armstrong’s foot first touched the lunar surface.
I couldn’t believe how lucky I was to be growing up during mankind’s greatest age of exploration and discovery, during a time when courage, determination, innovation, and technology brought the world together to witness our greatest achievement as Homo sapiens. And that was just the beginning, as we were all to pull together to establish bases on the Moon, walk upon the red soil of Mars, and extend our reach beyond our wildest dreams. What wonders I would see if my lifetime!
Then they cancelled Apollo 18, 19, and 20. Instead, we had Skylab and space stations and shuttle launches. Lots and lots of shuttle launches, but we never left Earth’s doorstep again. I grew up, lost hope, became angry and bitter that the dreams of youth had been shattered.
Finally in 2004, there was a glimmer of hope when President Bush announced that we were returning to the Moon and then heading for Mars. He summed up the space program perfectly when he said, “The desire to explore and understand is part of our character and that quest has brought tangible benefits that improve our lives in countless ways.”
Yes, yes, yes! Space exploration had brought
out the best in us, had fostered cooperation, had led to so many improvements and inventions that we all use every day. Finally, the people in charge realized the full value of setting lofty goals that bridge the gaps of human frailties and lead to better things we can’t even as yet imagine.
We were further assured by Presidential candidate Obama in a speech to space industry workers in Florida in August of 2008, when he stated that, “One of the areas we are in danger of losing our competitive edge is in science and technology, and nothing symbolizes that more than our space program. You know, I’ve written about this in my book. I still remember sitting on my grandfather’s shoulders as some of the astronauts were brought in from their capsules that landed in the Pacific. I could barely see them, but I remember waving the American flag, and my grandfather explained that this is what America is all about. We can do anything we put our minds to. When I was growing up, NASA inspired the world with achievements we are still proud of.
“So let me be clear. We can not cede our leadership in space. That’s why I’m going to close the gap, ensure that our space program doesn’t suffer when the shuttle goes out of service. We are going to continue to support NASA funding, speed the development of the shuttle’s successor, by making sure all of those who work in the space industry in Florida do not lose their jobs when the shuttle is retired, because we can’t afford to lose their expertise.”
Then President Obama dropped the ax on projects vital to our return to the Moon. As the shuttle missions drew to a close, tens of thousands of aerospace workers lost their jobs, taking their vital expertise anywhere they could find work.
In a perfect summation of the ignorance that kills science, Representative Nancy Pelosi said, “If you are asking me personally, I have not been a big fan of manned expeditions to outer space in terms of safety and cost.”
Bad Science Page 19