Solar Eclipse 2012

               A solar eclipse is one of the most beautiful and rare sights to see on Earth.  The magnitude of the whole situation is overwhelming.  The very first physical evidence to validate Einstein’s theory of relativity came from observing a solar eclipse.  An English astronomer and scholar named Eddington traveled all the way to a small island on the West coast of Africa, the Island of Principe.  But how would a solar eclipse have anything to do with relativity? 

            Einstein’s theory postulated a new theory of gravity.  He said that massive objects literally bend the fabric of space-time around it, and the more massive, the more ‘steep’ the curvature of space-time.  For classical mechanics, Einstein’s theory was consistent with Newtonian mechanics mathematically, but there were a few predictions which deviated from Newton.  One of the deviations from Newtonian theory had to do with the curvature of light around a massive object.  To test this, one could look at a solar eclipse and see how much the light was bent by the gravitational field caused by the mass of the sun.  Newton’s theory of gravity did in fact predict the deflections of light during a solar eclipse, but the two theories predicted different deflection angles.  Einstein predicted that the light would be deflected by about 1.75 arcseconds, which is tiny, but still about twice as much as Newton would have predicted.  So, if one of these theories was experimentally confirmed, it would show whose theory was more consistent with reality.

            Eddington went to Africa to observe the upcoming eclipse.  He took photographs of the sky before the eclipse happened to have a reference.  A full nineteen days prior to the eclipse on May 29, 1919, it rained every day on the Island of Principe.  This worried Eddington, hoping that he would actually be able to see the eclipse.  On the day of the eclipse, and even during it, the sun was covered by clouds for almost the entire day.  However, the clouds miraculously opened for a short time during the eclipse, just enough time to take one photograph.  Comparing the position of the stars between the two photographs, Eddington calculated that the light was deflected by the sun by about 1.62 arcseconds, a number consistent with Einstein’s theory of relativity.  This was the first evidence that Einstein’s theory might be right.  The report sent shock waves throughout the scientific community.

            Coming up this year, on May 20, 2012, there will be an annular solar eclipse visible from northern California.  A group of friends and I plan to go to witness the mind-blowing event. Are we going to be able to test Einstein’s theory ourselves?  How?  If we have the right equipment and precision, we should be able to.  An annular eclipse is when the apparent size of the moon is actually less than the apparent size of the sun.  Therefore, there will be a small ring around the edge of the moon where the sun still shows through.  I’m not sure if we will be able to see any stars close to the sun due to this, but we’re going to try anyway.  My cousin has an expensive telescope equipped with a solar filter to observe and take digital photographs of eclipses, as he has been preparing for this.  Obviously, especially since the sun isn’t completely covered, the eclipse should not be looked at with the naked eye, and any equipment being used must be prepared with caution.  A popular and inexpensive way to observe an eclipse is to simply buy some welder’s glasses with a rating of 14 or higher.  These glasses allow you to look at the sun without damaging your eyes and cost less than twenty dollars apiece.  I have bought a bundle of these for my friends and with my cousin’s telescope with a solar- filter, hopefully we will be able to confirm Einstein’s theory of relativity for ourselves.

Milankovitch Cycles and the Global Climate

               There are many opinions and debates about global warming.  I’m not really concerned with opinions, but fact is what science deals in.  Some say it’s a conspiracy, a scare tactic, or just a simple miscalculation.  Some are in denial, or just choose not to think about it.  Some are apathetic, assuming that their own small contribution couldn’t possibly make a difference.  Some say that these changes are just the natural cycles of the Earth, usually citing the Ice Age as their proof.  The truth is there are some uncertainties about how much we are affecting our planet’s climate, but there is absolutely no doubt that we are affecting it.  The Milankovitch Cycles are 3 very long cycles that the Earth goes through naturally.  There are 3 separate cycles that affect the Earth’s climate: Precession, Obliquity, and changes in eccentricity.

The first is called Precession, where the Earth’s axis of rotation shifts, creating a small circle in the sky with respect to the stars over 26,000 years.  For example, in about 4000 B.C., astronomers recorded that the axis of Earth’s rotation pointed toward the handle of the Big Dipper.  Now, our axis of rotation points toward the end of the handle of the Little dipper.  So what are the effects of this phenomenon? Well, I will talk about eccentricity later, but due to the eccentric orbit, the Earth will take 7 days longer to travel from vernal equinox to autumnal equinox than it will to travel from autumnal to vernal.  This is because of Kepler’s Second Law, the equal area law.  Due to the current orientation, the Northern Hemisphere has shorter winters than the Southern Hemisphere.  As the planet continues its cycle, this fact will slowly go toward longer winters in Southern Hemisphere, shorter in the Northern Hemisphere, and again every 26,000 years. 

There is also Obliquity (AKA Axial Tilt).  The Earth’s axis of rotation forms an angle with the plane of the ecliptic, and this is the angle, about 23.44 degrees, that causes the seasons.  Obliquity is the change of that angle over time, from about 22.1 to 24.5 degrees over 41,000 years.  This angle directly relates to the severity of the winter and summer months here on Earth.  The higher the tilt, the more extreme the seasons will be.  Severe winters can create large glaciers in the colder hemisphere.  But it’s not only which hemisphere you’re in, it’s also how far from the closest pole you are, or your latitude.  High latitudes experience high levels of insulation, letting the ice caps form, and lower latitudes have much lower insulation levels than average.  The Ice Age is theorized to have been produced by low obliquity because insulation during the summer increases.  Also, since most of the ice on the planet is at high latitude, the average insulation per year decreases with low obliquity.  This leads us to believe that perhaps there will be another ice age in the distance future due to this phenomenon.

Finally, the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit around the sun also changes over time, ranging from almost circular, e=0.005, to much higher at e=0.058 over 413,000 years.  Overall, the average eccentricity is about 0.028.  Right now the eccentricity of Earth’s orbit is about 0.017.  The effect of this change in eccentricity is a definite change in climate as a consequence of orbital mechanics, as we learned.  The more eccentricity an orbit has, it travels further away and comes closer to the star within one orbital period, but overall stays further away longer.  The distance from a star is monumentally important to temperature and climate of a planet.

So is it really just natural cycles that are causing all these scientists to overreact?  No.  There is a mountain of evidence that condemns the way we are creating energy and our overall way of life today.  As the professor said in class, we cannot sustain this.  There are natural cycles that the planet goes through, but that doesn’t excuse us from acting the way we are.  Just because we don’t understand something all the way, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or that we can ignore it.  We all need the step up to the plate, and do our part to preserve our own little space ship: Earth.

You Learn Something Everyday

               The other day I got into a debate with a friend of mine.  The argument he was putting forward was mostly a ‘what have you done for me lately’ attitude about NASA and why we should continue to spend billions of dollars per year on something ‘everyday people don’t benefit from.’  Why don’t we spend that money here on Earth to improve our quality of life?  This spurred my inspiration to do a blog post about it. 

            Over the years, NASA has taught us an extreme amount of scientific knowledge, and has pushed modern scientists to go above and beyond the status quo.  The daunting conditions and implications of space travel has brought out the best in creativity and cooperation from our brightest minds, creating innumerable new technologies that benefit people not just in the US, but around the world.  In the medical field, NASA has greatly contributed to radiological technology and even artificial heart pumps and defibrillators.  In order to service spacecraft, a mechanical arm was developed that is now used in operating rooms across the world, allowing surgeons to operate three instruments simultaneously.  In the year 2000 NASA developed an internet based Global Differential GPS to secure a real-time capability for position and orbit determination.  This technology you probably use weekly on your iPhone, trying to find your way.  Back in the ‘70’s NASA developed a Teflon-coated fiberglass as a fabric for spacesuits to protect astronauts from extreme temperatures.  This material has been used as permanent roofing material for buildings and stadiums around the world.  NASA also created a seven-step system to monitor food productions to assure astronauts did not get sick while on a mission.  Years later, the FDA and Agriculture Department adopted the use of this system nationwide.  The year after these methods were implemented, the number of salmonella cases dropped by a factor of two.  The multi-spectral imaging methods used for analyzing far away bodies was used to read charred ancient Roman manuscripts buried in the Mt. Vesuvius eruption in 79 A.D.  Reportedly, this method allowed scholars to decode the carbonized manuscripts by observing them at different wavelengths, knowledge that otherwise would have been forever lost. 

            There recently has been a new development from the space program that can help save lives and also water.  NASA has recently been working on a new rocket-engine design.  The new design uses a new method to ignite fuel in the ignition chamber.  Now, as the fuel is pumped into the chamber, it’s spinning very quickly, creating a vortex.  This vortex more precisely focuses the flow and the fuel is kept closer to the center of the chamber which in turn keeps the walls of the chamber cooler.  Using the same ‘vortex pumping’ technology, engineers have designed a new way to pump water more quickly and more efficiently for putting out fires.  A test was recently performed, to see how fast this new pump could put out fires.  The new pump discharges at 1,400 psi (pounds per square inch) versus 125 psi in the standard fire hose and an astounding 20 gallons per minute, versus the old 100 gpm.  So, it has much more force and uses much less water.  Can it really put out the same fire with less water?  The results of the test were undeniable.  The test fire was put out in 105 seconds using 220 gallons of water using the standard fire hose water line.  The new system extinguished the same fire in 17.3 seconds using only 13.6 gallons of water.  Amazing!  The fire was put out 83% faster using 93% less water!  On top of all that, the new hose doesn’t require more than one fire fighter to control it.  It can be operated by a single individual, allowing other rescuers on the scene to do other important things, increasing safety overall. 

            The government could not have foreseen specific breakthroughs in technology, nor can we expect to predict what might come next, but the simple fact still remains: investing in science will always bring us new technology.  The space program has led to countless inventions and methods that increase our well-being and quality of life as a planet, giving us innovations that critically benefit our lives.

Satellites vs. UFOs

               Every year there are thousands of UFO sightings across the world.  But what are these witnesses really seeing?  Reportedly there are over 900 satellites in orbit around the Earth right now moving fast and sometimes shining brightly as they move quickly across the sky.  So, are some or all of these UFO sightings just an overreaction to seeing a satellite move across the sky?

            There are two very common reports of UFO sightings that can be explained by modern science.  One of the most common reports is that the witness sees a small white dot (looks like a star) moving at a constant (very fast) speed moving on a straight or slightly curved path over the horizon.  The other is when the witness sees a reddish, white, or bluish mass for a split second travel ‘down’ and then disappear.  The first is simply a satellite moving across the sky as it is orbiting the earth.  You may ask, if there are over 900 satellites in orbit, then why is it that seeing one is such a rarity that the public could attribute it to a UFO sighting?  Well first, during the day we almost never see satellites in the sky due to the brightness in the sky during that time.  Second, these satellites have a substantial amount of metallic material.  The reason we don’t see them constantly is because of the slim chance of everything in question happening simultaneously.  The chances of the sun being at the exact perfect angle to go off of one of the satellites, and down onto the Earth to where someone is standing and looking at that spot for that short time during nighttime are small.  However small, still not zero because it does happen, and the witnesses who see it commonly attribute this phenomenon to a UFO sighting.  They might be disappointed to know that this is not in fact a UFO at all but a satellite that makes their cell phone work.  The second common report is of something with a distinct color “falling,” from the sky.  This is simply a random burning meteor coming through the atmosphere.  The fact that is moving so fast can be explained by the fact that it is being accelerated by gravity.  The fact that it is a certain color, and multiple colors have been reported, can be attributed to the fact that different elements burn at different colors.  UFO enthusiasts get very excited about the different colors, and begin to imagine different colors representing different alien races etc.  They would be disappointed to find out that a simple fact of chemistry thwarts all these ideas.

            At the same time, there have been reports that can’t be so easily explained.  Some reports describe a large stationary craft in the air near the horizon.  The witnesses say that these large crafts seem to just sit there in the sky, despite the diurnal motion of the background of the stars.  On top of that, witnesses report that there are some other, much smaller crafts that appear to fly out of the large craft and fly in organized formations around it, forming shapes, flashing colored lights etc.  This I cannot explain with a simple physical phenomenon.  Another common report includes something moving through the sky like a satellite, but then all of a sudden it shoots off its course at about 100 times its original speed and disappears.  Witnesses commonly associate this with a kind of ‘warp speed’ seen in fantasies like Star Wars.  This I cannot easily explain either.  So can these sightings still be explained using simple physics?  Or is there something more going on here?

Is the government making excuses and dismissing the idea of extra terrestrial life?  Or is the general public so hopeful to see something extraordinary that they over blow something they saw?  Do these witnesses not understand what they’re really seeing? Or is it that there really is something or someone out there flying these crafts around and through our planet?  Can all these sightings really be attributed to weather balloons and satellites?  Or is the public stirring the pot trying to get the government or space explorers to admit to something that they otherwise wouldn’t?  Some witnesses are very convinced, and very adamant about what they saw, yet so are some of these government officials and scientists coming out to deny these reports.  Will we ever know what is really going on out there?  Will the government let us know?  Maybe we have to wait until we see something for ourselves.

Kepler 22b

               In class we talked about the Kepler space mission and what its doing and how it works.  Also, I did a report about the Kepler mission a couple years back when it was first launched in 2009.  Basically, the high resolution satellite camera “stares” at a grouping of thousands of stars, looking for the slightest deviations in one of the star’s luminosities.  This deviation in brightness suggests that something passed in front of that star.  By staring at this star group for a couple of years we are able to determine if one of these deviations has a definite period and therefore conclude that these deviations in brightness are due to orbiting planets, by determining some kind of normality.  Once we find planets, we focus in on these orbits and try to determine whether or not this planet could be an ‘earth-like’ planet, that is, if life could be sustained there.  One major criterion when analyzing these planets is determining whether or not the planet in question is habitable. That is, if the planet is in the ‘goldilocks zone’ or not.  The Goldilocks zone means that the planet is not too close to the star, and not too far from the star, but just right so that liquid water can exist on the surface of the planet.  The idea seems pretty sound, but three years after the March 7, 2009 launch, do we have anything to show for it?  In fact we do.  We have found a planet in the Goldilocks zone that has an orbital period of 290 days.  But is it truly realistic to assume that life may exist there?  Well, we have to analyze the star and use any information that we can affirm to try to describe this new planet: Kepler 22b.

            Kepler 22b could be just right for life, with an estimated 72 degrees Farenheit at the surface, a perfect day for us here on Earth.  At the same time, we’re not even sure it has a surface.  Also, this calculation takes into account some kind of atmosphere, which keeps heat in and warms the ‘surface.’  The relationships of the distance from the star and the size of the star are comparable to that of Earth, however Kepler 22b is estimated to be about 2.4 times larger than Earth.  Some scientists speculate that this could mean that Kepler 22b is more like our own Neptune: mostly gas and liquid with a small rocky core.  This would mean that the surface of Kepler 22b is in fact water, but water and only water.  A huge planet with nothing on the surface but oceans?  A proverbial water-world?  Yes.  And to discount the notion that life would not exist there because there is no landmass would be careless.  It’s definitely not out of the question that life could in fact live in such a water-world.

            Just how close to Earth conditions is Kepler 22b?  Well, out of 2,326 candidates observed so far by Kepler, only 139 of which are potentially habitable, Kepler 22b is the closest in size and temperature and the star in that system is the most comparable to our sun of all the stars found.  This could be the one.  But there’s a catch: Kepler 22b is about 600 light years away from us, so finding out what is on that planet first hand is out of the question.  That is, unless us scientists can figure something out of course.

What does an Astronomer do?

Astronomers do many different things to aid space missions and even everyday life.  They study our own solar system as well as other stars planets and galaxies that are very far away.  Really, astronomy is the oldest of all the natural sciences dating back to our most ancient ancestors. 

            One of the coolest things about astronomy is it’s the only science in which one cannot really perform experiments.  You can’t weigh the sun for example, or smell it.  Astronomers can only observe the light coming from these distant bodies.  It is truly amazing how much astronomers are able to tell us about these stars and galaxies with nothing more to work with than the light.  It’s fascinating to me. 

            Most astronomers tend to focus more on a single branch of astronomy, such as stellar evolution or galaxy formation.  There are two types of astronomers.  There are the observational astronomers who use telescopes or spacecrafts equipped with advanced computer programs, which they design, to test predictions or new theories.  These theories come from the theorist astronomers.  Theorists do things like create a computer model of a star to try to understand physical processes that happen on the interior.

            Nowadays, astronomers don’t usually look through the eyepiece of a telescope to collect data, but use digital cameras with advanced optic technology attached to a computer to collect, sort, and analyze massive amounts of data.  Another thing astronomers have done is create the technology necessary to observe the skies in such an efficient and controlled manner.  Most an astronomers time is not spent observing, but rather trying to make sense of the observations and to be able to validate the spectra that they have observed.  However, these super expensive cutting-edge telescopes are not available at every university.  The observational astronomer spends a lot of time traveling around the world to use different telescopes and to chase rare astronomical events.  Almost all observing is done late into the night, so sometimes an astronomer’s circadian rhythm can get thrown off.

            Astronomy is a huge branch of science that applies many aspects of science to make sense of the massive amounts of data being collected by computerized telescope cameras.  Such an existential yet mathematically sound discipline is very rare and brings inspiration to myself and many students across the world.  Astronomy is sole reason why I chose to major is physics.

NASA Shut Down

               When I was at community college before coming to UCR, I wasn’t sure what I wanted to do with my life.  I took just about all the sciences, from psychology to biology, chemistry to astronomy to try to find what interested me most.  After taking astronomy and having brilliant, inspiring professor I found that my passion was for the stars.  I was attending Pasadena City College, and every day on the way to class I would drive by JPL and Cal Tech, hoping to be working there someday.  Ever since NASA “shut down,” people close to me assume that my hopes must have changed: crushed by a government shut down.  “Didn’t they shut down NASA?” or,“I thought there were no more space missions,” are among common comments I get.  So is it realistic to hope that there will be jobs in the field?  Or, should I change my aspirations and abandon Astronomy for more down to earth options?

            The truth is NASA itself is not shutting down.  What is shutting down is the space shuttle program.  After six main shuttle projects, spanning over thirty years, the federal government shut down the space shuttle program, for good.  But why?  Government officials say that it’s all money, and that during a rough time for the United States economy vast amounts of money for space shuttle missions just isn’t ideal.  On the other hand, there was already over 9 billion dollars invested into the new Constellation program which planned to build a new shuttle Orion and the Ares rockets for future manned moon missions.  On top of that, the federal government has set aside another 6 billion dollars over five years to go towards commercial construction of spacecraft to send NASA astronauts into space.  So, they’re throwing away 9 billion dollars that had already gone toward the Constellation program, and also putting another 6 billion out there so some private company can build spacecraft. 

            To me, this doesn’t really make sense.  The budget request for the Constellation program was about 19 billion dollars.  So, once the government was 9 billion dollars in, they pull the plug and throw another 6 billion on top for someone else to build a shuttle?  So overall, the government saves 4 billion dollars and basically surrenders the honor and prestige of the NASA shuttle program to private companies?  Why would the government want to so strongly disassociate themselves with space exploration?  I see only two possible explanations for this.

            One explanation is simple.  The vast amount of money that goes into space exploration and into building these shuttles is sometimes perplexing and even frustrating to some Americans who don’t understand the benefits of these missions and the NASA program as a whole.  This leads to our President, who is seeking reelection, to perhaps want to separate himself from all this spending during a time when money is tight for our country.  So perhaps, as the new public outlook on what NASA and space exploration can actually bring to us changed, the position of our government also changed.  When NASA was founded by President Eisenhower during the Cold War in 1958, the general public was overwhelmingly supportive of the program because it was seen more as an “us against them,” patriotic, and competitive endeavor.  Now, there isn’t much for people to cheer about, as the public eye may see these missions as repetitive and unimportant, forcing the government to act accordingly. 

            Another possible explanation for the government trying to disassociate itself with the space program is perhaps less obvious.  Mostly due to the amount of money associated with the space program in the past, it has been highly scrutinized and under the media microscope.  If these endeavors become privatized, the requirement to explain and justify every billion dollars being spent, as well as sharing any discoveries publicly, disappears.  These operations can go on without limitations of public opinion and the limited amount of tax dollars than will go towards these missions.  If it is privatized, these rich companies can do as much spending and research and development of new craft, new ideas, and new missions as they want, and there isn’t any public scrutiny involved because these programs are no longer directly connected to the federal government.  This way, we can basically do much more space exploration and missions than ever before, but the catch is that we have to find investors willing to risk large amounts of money for uncertain results.

            Either way, the government is trying to set itself apart from the space program as much as possible, first to deflect some of the budget inquiries and objections, then to allow the space exploration to continue to grow in the long run.

            There is one more angle at which we can look at this situation.  Throughout the history of NASA itself, it has periodically shifted the focus of the organization.  Is the shutting down of the space shuttle program just a preparation for better things to come?  Have we outgrown the space shuttle and do we need to focus on building new crafts to get further out into the solar system?  Is NASA doing this to cover up some more sophisticated, perhaps confidential missions going on that they don’t want the public to know about?  We may find out soon enough.  The most important thing to me is that whatever happens, I still want to be able to know what is going on as far as stellar research and any space missions.  So far, I’m not convinced that these changed will allow us to know what is happening out there in the cosmos.