Guide to the Cosmos, gold, New Scientist

Monday, January 11th, 2010

As of today, I’m on a podcast! Check out “Guide to the Cosmos,” a podcast hosted by Dr. Robert Piccioni, at www.guidetothecosmos.com. It was actually Christmas Eve Day when we recorded this interview over the phone, and it’s a two-parter. The first part, in today’s episode, is about water on the moon, and I talk all about the recent discoveries by Chandrayaan-1 and LCROSS. The second part is about the origin of the moon, and that part of the interview will air in February.

The audio part of the podcast is actually on a different site, called WebTalkRadio. You can go to their main site, www.webtalkradio.net, and then look for “Guide to the Cosmos” under the “Show podcasts” tab. But I’ll make it easy for you and give you a direct link. Dr. Piccioni also puts some images up on his own website to go with the podcast, which you can look at here as you listen to the interview.

When I recorded the interview I did not know which images he was going to have up on his website, so I wasn’t able to refer to them directly. Let me fill in that gap here. Image #1 shows the impact plume from LCROSS’s crash into the Cabeus crater.

Cabeus impact plume

This cloud of debris was not visible from Earth. The photo was taken from the “shepherding satellite” that passed directly overhead and crashed into the moon 4 minutes later. The spectrometers on the shepherding satellite analyzed both the absorbed and emitted light from this cloud to look for traces of water and other compounds. Image #2 is just a pretty picture of the full moon, nothing else. The LCROSS impact happened way down at the bottom of that picture, in the bumpy area around the south pole. Image #3 is a “wiggly line” from the ultraviolet and visible spectrometer.

Spectrum showing sodium emission line plus something interesting

Interestingly, this is not the data set that Tony Colaprete, the main project scientist, has talked about the most. Unlike the near infrared spectrometer, whose readings they understand pretty well and which show definitive evidence of water, the UV/VIS spectrum requires more interpretation and they are just beginning to work on it. The peak on the right is actually not water but sodium. (This emission band looks yellow to the naked eye, and explains why a sodium lamp is yellow. See this Wikipedia entry to read more about it.)

You can also see two shorter peaks on the left that have not been identified yet. At the AGU meeting in December, Tony said they think that one of them could be gold! Yes, gold on the moon. You read about it here first.

Back in the days before Apollo went to the moon, there was a slightly kooky scientist named Tommy Gold who said that the moon was covered by a layer of dust so deep that any spacecraft that landed on the moon would just sink into it and never be seen again. Fortunately, this didn’t turn out to be the case, but for a while NASA had to take the possibility seriously, and his hypothetical surface layer became known as “Gold dust.” But now lunar gold dust may take on a whole new meaning!

I did not report on this earlier (“LCROSS Strikes Gold!”) because they really don’t know what the peaks are yet, and so Tony’s comment was at least partly meant in jest. If they ever get more serious about it, I’ll be sure to let you know.

Last month I wrote an article for New Scientist online about the moon sessions at the AGU meeting, called “Are We Looking in the Wrong Places for Water on the Moon?” This was a very ticklish article to write, but I was happy with it in the end. Basically, the story is that one of the instruments on the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) has been seeing lots of indications of water in places where it isn’t supposed to be.

LCROSS went to a permanently shadowed crater because that is where theory says that lunar water, if it exists, should concentrate. It went to Cabeus, in particular, because that is where the Lunar Exploration Neutron Detector (LEND) on LRO saw the highest concentrations of water. But what’s interesting, and controversial, is that LEND has seen no correlation so far between permanent shadowing and hydrogen deposits! There are other regions with just as much water as Cabeus that aren’t in shadow.

What made the article ticklish to write is that there are some people who frankly don’t believe the LEND data yet. I tried to hint at this without pouring oil onto the fire. But there are three groups–one in Russia, two in the U.S.–who are working on the LEND data and they all are saying pretty much the same thing. You can’t just ignore this fact and pretend it isn’t there, while at the same time singing the praises of LCROSS and the LRO camera and the other experiments on LRO. That’s why I felt it was important to write this article, even if the jury is still out on what the results mean.

In a blog I think I can be more adventurous than I can in print, so I’ll hazard a guess as to what it might mean. The LCROSS results are hinting that there is way more water than you can produce by bombarding the moon’s surface with the solar wind–some of the water has to be from meteoroids or comets. LEND can see beneath the surface, and Igor Mitrofanov, the principal investigator for LEND, says that he thinks they are seeing deposits of hydrogen that lie beneath the surface, covered by a layer of dry soil. Putting two and two together, I think that the water is delivered by meteoroids/comets, and is then buried by some process we don’t understand yet (or maybe it’s just in a sufficiently thick layer to begin with?). Once it’s buried, it doesn’t need a permanently shadowed crater to keep it from evaporating. Sure, it might be associated with a permanently shadowed crater, but really any crater will do. Or maybe even something that isn’t a crater! One of the most puzzling things about the LEND data was that one of the hydrogen deposits seemed to be on one side of a mountain range. But maybe that makes sense, if the mountain range was created by the meteoroid/comet impact.

Well, this is just my feeble amateur speculation. The specialists will, of course, hash it out and either come up with an explanation, or agree to disagree. One thing that’s pretty certain is that there is a lot we don’t know yet.

Tags: Chandrayaan-1, hydrogen, LCROSS, LEND, lunar origin, New Scientist, podcast, Robert Piccioni, Thomas Gold, water, WebTalkRadio
Posted in Media, Meetings, Missions, NASA, Science, websites | 2 Comments »

More from the AGU: Pink Moon, White Mountains

Friday, December 18th, 2009

My last two posts were about the American Geophysical Union meeting, held this week in San Francisco. The meeting is now over, but I’m not done writing about it yet — not by a long shot!

In 1971, Nick Drake recorded a song called “Pink Moon” that became a posthumous hit in 1999 when it appeared in a Volkswagen commercial. Now it turns out that he was really on to something. On Wednesday afternoon, Carle Pieters, the lead scientist for the Moon Mineralogy Mapper on Chandrayaan-1, the Indian spacecraft that circled the moon for ten months, talked about her discovery of a new, magnesium-rich pink spinel.

Well, okay, it isn’t really a pink moon. But if you go to the moon’s far side and land your spacecraft on the edge of the Moscoviense basin — a very attractive place, with one of the few maria on the moon’s far side — she says that you can dig up all the pink spinel that you want.

Because we have never landed anything on the moon’s far side — human, robot, or other — we’ll have to wait a while to find out if she is right. The evidence from the Moon Mineralogy Mapper (M-cubed for short) is a very distinctive spectrum, with no absorption at 1 micron and a “whopping” (Pieters’ technical term) absorption band at 2 microns, that is totally unlike any other known moon rocks but a very good match for pink spinel measured in the laboratory.

Jessica Sunshine also talked about spinel, but hers is very dark, not pink, and is probably mostly chromite. M-cubed found this deposit — also previously unknown — at only one place on the near side of the moon, a region called Sinus Aestuum. Why only there? Dunno. How much is there? Dunno. But this would be a great spot to explore once we start sending robots or astronauts back to the moon. (2015? 2020? 2100? Never?)

The good thing, and the bad thing, about both of these talks is that they were just good ol’ talks about rocks, the sort of things that geologists like to talk about when the press isn’t watching. Lest we forget, M-cubed was not really intended to look for water ice. The whole business about water was really an unexpected bonus. If they had really expected to see water, they would have made the spectrometer sensitive out to 3.6 microns. (3 microns is enough to see the peak absorption bands of hydroxyl and water at 2.7 and 2.8, but not the full spectra.)

Neither Pieters’ nor Sunshine’s findings are going to make headlines, but they are good examples of a scientific instrument doing what it was meant to do, and finding new stuff. The take-home message for non-geologists is just that the moon is not a homogeneous place; it has stuff we haven’t seen before and it most likely has stuff we haven’t even thought of yet. The other message is that all of these discoveries allow us to piece together a few more puzzle pieces to understand lunar geology.

In the case of the spinel, Larry Taylor explained in his talk how these deposits were probably formed by secondary intrusions of magma into the anorthosite layer at the top of the lunar magma ocean. In her final talk, Pieters also mentioned the magma ocean, which is believed to have encircled the moon immediately after its formation by a giant impact. She said that M-cubed found a “massive amount” of anorthosite in the Inner Rook Mountains in Mare Orientale, which she described as “very strong evidence for the magma ocean hypothesis.”

This comment made me sit up in surprise. I tend to think of the magma ocean as a done deal; I wrote about it in my book as one of the major discoveries, perhaps the major discovery, of the Apollo missions. Why would you care about proving something you already know?

The reason is that in science, nothing is ever really a done deal. A hypothesis may eventually become a theory, and it may become conventional wisdom, but you always want to collect new data and look for new evidence. The magma ocean hypothesis is based on a few anorthositic dust samples and anorthositic rocks collected by the Apollo astronauts. Until now, we hadn’t really seen any large-scale structures made of anorthosite. Now we have seen a whole mountain range of the stuff, or at least Pieters thinks we have, from orbit. The next thing to do is send a geologist there and see if she is right. Do we have any volunteers to go and look for Carle Pieters’s white mountain range?

Tags: anorthosite, Carle Pieters, Chandrayaan-1, Jessica Sunshine, Larry Taylor, lunar magma ocean, Mare Orientale, Moon Mineralogy Mapper, Moscoviense, Sinus Aestuum, spinel
Posted in Future exploration, Media, Meetings, Missions, Science | 1 Comment »

I’m a Geoblogger!

Thursday, December 17th, 2009

At the American Geophysical Union meeting this week I dicovered that I belong to a small community that I didn’t even know about: I’m a geoblogger! There was a luncheon on Wednesday for people who blog about earth or space sciences, and so I got to meet about fifteen other people who do the same thing.

One of the things that struck me was the diversity of the blogs: the different types of sites, the different reasons for blogging, the different people doing it. Every blog has its own flavor. The majority of the geobloggers were graduate students or faculty, but there were a few journalists too.

So who was there, you ask? Let me introduce you!

Reia Chmielowski came from the longest distance — all the way from Milano. She is a postdoc in metamorphic petrology. Her blog, The Musings of a Life-Long Scholar, takes a personal tone, and it might be of interest to academics outside of geology.

Larry O’Hanlon is a professional journalist who will be blogging for “two more weeks” at Discovery News before passing the blog on to someone else; however, he will still remain very much involved with the site.  He notes that it’s kind of hard to tell the blog apart from the regular news now, because a recent redesign of the site has merged the two.

Claus Haslauer, Dave Petley, Pawam Gupta, and Steve Easterbrook had different approaches to the faculty blog. They are your go-to guys if you are interested in geostatistics, landslides, aerosols, and climate change informatics respectively. To a large extent their blogs are oriented toward colleagues rather than to the public. (Gupta said this explicitly — the purpose of his blog is to “review peer-reviewed papers.”) However, Petley’s blog in particular gets a lot of hits from outside academia, especially when a natural disaster hits. He also says that he attracts a lot of students with his blog, and has begun to be better known for his blog than for his own research! Faculty everywhere, take note!

Carrying the grad student torch were Cassaundra Myers and Julian Lozos, both of UC Riverside. Cassaundra’s blog, UCR GEOP Chalkboard, is more of a departmental blog that other students contribute to (but she does the most work on it). Julian was a wannabe musician, and is now a wannabe seismologist. He has been doing social media of one sort or another since he was a kid, and said that his choice of topics has graduated from “What is your favorite Pokemon?” to “Earthquakes are not the bogeyman.”

Actually, this last comment raises an interesting point. Julian says that people always ask him how he can study something as depressing as earthquakes, but in fact earthquakes give us lots of fascinating information about our planet. Like carnivores with big claws and big sharp teeth, they get a bad rap. To read more about them, check out his blog, Harmonic Tremors.

If there was one blog whose title made me immediately want to go read it, it was probably Brian Shiro’s. He is currently in training to become an astronaut. By some quirk of fate, he learned about an opportunity to apply for astronaut training the very same week he started his blog, Astronaut for Hire. That’s right, he started his blog first and then became an “astronaut for hire”! This is a true example of the power of positive thinking. By the way, his “geo” credentials are that he works at the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center, and his blog contains some posts about that topic as well.

There were two interesting blogs from people who, like me, are academic castaways. Andrew Alden is a former geologist with the US Geological Survey who now is the Geology Guide for about.com. He uses his blog as a front end to his main informational pages on about.com, which get the most traffic. He noted that when he started with about.com, he would write long informative posts, but he has since found that about 80 percent of the people who visit the site just want to look at pictures of rocks!

I hope that Michael Tobis doesn’t mind me describing him as an “academic castaway” because he is in fact employed at the University of Texas, but it sounds as if his job is not really his raison d’etre. “My blog has been the core of my intellectual and social life for the last two years,” he said. His passion is climate change and his blog is called Only In It for the Gold, and you need to check it out.

The name, by the way, is a reference to something someone once said to Tobis at a party. When he told the hostess that he worked on climate change, a hush fell over the room. (Living in Texas, in the heart of oil country, that’s probably as good a conversation-stopper as saying you are an atheist.) His hostess, fumbling for something cheerful to say, said, “Well, I’m sure there is good money in that!”

Finally, three representatives of mainstream publications were also there. Carolyn Gramling blogs for www.earthmagazine.org, Mouse Reusch is one of several writers for the Big Wide World graduate student blog at www.newscientist.com, and Harvey Leifert is a rather infrequent blogger at the Climate Feedback blog at www.nature.com. We forgive Harvey because he is the former public information officer for the American Geophysical Union and thus has done more to promote public understanding of geophysics than all the rest of us put together.

I apologize to any other bloggers who were there whom I haven’t written about, because I had to duck out of the lunch early (actually, at its scheduled ending time) to hear the great debate over the Younger Dryas Boundary. The question: Did an impact from an extraterrestrial object cause the climate cooling 12,900 years ago that maybe caused sabertooth tigers to die out and the Clovis culture to end? To me, the most convincing talk by far was given by Alan Harris of the Space Science Institute. The intrinsic probability of such an event, a 4-kilometer asteroid hitting Earth in the last 13,000 years, is so low that you need extremely compelling proof to overcome it. As a mathematician, I would use Bayes’ Theorem to explain this, but there is an old saying of Carl Sagan that works just as well for non-mathematical folks: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” And the evidence for the alleged impact, so far, falls way way short of being extraordinary.

Well, none of this has much to do with the moon, but it’s just an example of the incredible variety of interesting stuff you can hear about at the AGU meeting.

Tags: aerosols, AGU, astronaut, climate change, Discovery Channel, Earth Magazine, earthquakes, extraordinary, geobloggers, geostatistics, landslides, Nature, New Scientist, off-topic, Younger Dryas Boundary
Posted in Meetings, Science, websites | 5 Comments »

Naked Astronauts, etc.

Tuesday, December 15th, 2009

Sometimes the best questions are facetious.

This morning I was attending the moon sessions at the American Geophysical Union conference in San Francisco. One of the talks was by Justin Kasper, who works on the cosmic ray detection experiment (CRaTER) on the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. After his talk, one of the audience members (Mark Robinson of the LRO Camera team) asked what have to be the most unexpected questions of the meeting:

“So, is an astronaut’s suit dangerous? In a theoretical sense, would it be better for an astronaut to go naked?”

Before I tell you the answer, let me tell you why the question is not as crazy as it seems.

Kasper had just reported on the most unexpected finding so far by the cosmic ray experiment. It was supposed to measure how much radiation on the moon is coming from outer space (cosmic rays) and the sun (mostly protons from the solar wind). But they have found that the moon itself is a significant source of radiation.

In open space, CRaTER counted about 33 cosmic rays per second. (By the way, that’s an unusually high number. The sun is currently in one of the most quiet phases ever recorded in its magnetic cycle, which means that it is not doing as good a job as usual of blocking cosmic rays from outside the solar system.) When LRO got into lunar orbit, about 50 kilometers above the surface, the count dropped to 22 cosmic rays per second. Sounds great — you’re safer on the moon than in outer space.

But here’s the catch. If you’re on the moon, the moon ought to block half the cosmic rays coming from outer space! Even if you’re orbiting 50 kilometers above the moon, the moon should still block about 14 out of 33 cosmic rays, letting only 19 through. Because CRaTER is recording 22 per second, the remainder of the radiation (3 events per second) must be coming from the moon!

At this point, they can’t be sure why, but Kasper conjectured that this radiation is produced by cosmic rays that hit the surface, smash up an atomic nucleus, and re-radiate back into space.

What does this have to do with space suits? Well, your space suit contains lots of heavy atomic nuclei for the cosmic rays to smash into. So if you’re an astronaut, you’re going to be exposed to some radiation emanating from your space suit, for the same reason. That’s why Robinson asked his question.

Now really we don’t recommend future astronauts to do the full moon-ty. There are good reasons for wearing a space suit, such as the inconvenient fact that humans need air to breathe. However, Kasper did say that we should think carefully about what we make space suits out of. Are some materials better at absorbing cosmic rays than others? It’s also relevant for building shelters on the moon. “The results suggest that building a wall is a little more helpful than building an umbrella,” he said.

Actually, this comment was facetious too, because a flimsy umbrella isn’t going to help you much against cosmic rays. In an interview last week, Jack Burns of the University of Colorado, a science advisor for NASA, told me that one of the best defenses against cosmic rays is actually a tank of water. (That is one more reason why discovering water on the moon is important.)

Tags: AGU, cosmic rays, full monty, LRO, radiation, sun
Posted in Future exploration, Just for Fun, Meetings, NASA, Science | 1 Comment »

LEAG Conference, part 2

Thursday, November 26th, 2009

While the LEAG meeting in Houston last week featured lots of exciting new results from LCROSS and LRO, it also provided an opportunity for discussion about the future of lunar exploration, human spaceflight, and NASA. The main theme of the meeting was sustainability: If and when humans return to the moon, how do they do so in a sustainable way?

One point that everyone (as far as I could tell) agreed on is that the Apollo model is not sustainable. By “the Apollo model” I mean what the lunar scientists like to call “sorties.” You build an enormous rocket, you take everything you need with you, you leave all of your junk there and you never use it again.

An alternative approach would be incremental or cumulative. You would probably start with several robotic precursor missions that would establish where your key resources are, and perform technology demos. Can we extract oxygen from lunar rocks? Can we extract water from lunar soils? Can we control lunar dust so that it doesn’t get into everything and cause all of our machines to break down? Can we safeguard astronauts from radiation?

If we find satisfactory answers to these questions, then we can build a base on the moon, although another possibility would be a base at the L1 point (or Lagrange point) where Earth’s gravity and the moon’s gravity cancel each other out. The things that you need to bring from Earth are brought a little bit at a time, somewhat like the way that we built the International Space Station. You don’t just go there, use your stuff once, and leave it. You need to re-use as much as you can. And finally, if there is anything that you can produce onsite, you do it. That primarily means (at this stage of the discussion) water, atmosphere, food, and propellant.

What I’ve just said may seem obvious, but it was surprisingly non-obvious for a very long time. Those of us who lived through the Apollo era were very surprised when the trips to the moon stopped. A lot has been written about the possible reasons: the public’s apathy, the Cold War politics that went into the moon race, the Vietnam War that sapped the American budget, etc. But maybe it had to happen. The whole approach was unsustainable.

Even now, many people still want to reproduce the Apollo model as we prepare for missions to Mars. This was the chief criticism that I heard of the Augustine Commission report. The “Flexible Path” option, many people felt, was just “Apollo on steroids,” traveling to more places with one-shot missions instead of building up the infrastructure for a sustainable presence in space.

I suppose I should name some names here. Paul Spudis is an especially passionate advocate of the idea that we must think about sustainability when we return to space. I wish I could just copy his whole presentation here, but that would not be very original. He said, “The goal is not to excite the public. The public must see the value in lunar exploration, which is different from making it exciting.” He took issue with the Augustine Commission’s conclusion that the ultimate destination (their words) is Mars. “The goal of returning to the moon is to become a spacefaring species,” he said. I think this is a great mission statement. Mars is not the ultimate goal; the ultimate is to be able to go wherever we want. Spudis would build up that capability on the moon.

Also, Igor Mitrofanov gave a perspective from the Russian space agency: “We will support missions to the moon if we will go there forever. Then we will participate as a nation.” He compared the moon to a new continent: “The first explorers looked for a place for a settlement, a bay, a harbor,” he said. Obviously he is arguing for a base approach rather than a sortie approach.

Many participants in the meeting said that sustainability would have to mean economic viability. Paul Spudis, as usual, formulated the question nicely, by listing three stages of lunar exploration: Arrive, Survive, Thrive. So far we have shown that we can Arrive. The next step is Survival — showing that we can stay for a long time on the moon — but ultimately the point of the whole exercise is to Thrive.

Both Spudis and Bob Wegeng, of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, drew analogies with the development of railroads in the 19th century. I went to lunch with Wegeng, who exposited at length about the railroads and told me some things that I did not know before. In school (in the U.S., at least), we all hear about the golden spike that completed the first transcontinental railroad in 1869. It’s part of our national mythology, just as much as the moon landing 100 years later. But that railroad went bankrupt several times, in spite of all of its government support!

The first economically successful transcontinental railroad, according to Wegeng, was the Great Northern Railway, built by James Jerome Hill. Wikipedia says it  was ”the first transcontinental built without public money and … one of the few transcontinental railroads not to go bankrupt.” Hill built up the Great Northern’s customer base by selling homesteads to farmers along the railroad route and even building industrial plants that would be served by his railroad.

If we want to learn from this example, it suggests that we will Thrive on the moon when a mega-corporation comes along, led by one person with vision, which does not just focus on the transportation technology but constructs a whole econosphere on the moon.

Who could that mega-corporation be? Not the current aerospace companies; they are too much like the government-backed railroads that failed. What about Google? I don’t know. It seems a little bit outside of their skill set, but they do have the vision. All things considered, the vision is probably more important than the skills or the capital, which can always be acquired on the way.

Anyway, getting back to the LEAG meeting, the one presentation that really looked at the moon from an economic point of view was by Brad Blair, a mining engineer who also works with the Canadian Space Agency. His paper was actually out of date — he presented an economic analysis of investing in the moon that he published back in 2002 or 2003. He analyzed five different scenarios, and in the last, ridiculously optimistic scenario he showed a possible return on investment in the range of $3 to $4 billion. I think the importance of his study lies not so much in the specific numbers or conclusions but in the methodology. I think his work needs to be updated for the decade of the 2010s. The discussion of lunar exploration has been completely dominated so far by scientists and engineers, but at some point some economists need to get involved.

Finally, in the discussion of sustainability, there were some interesting points made about public opinion. Spudis calls it the “50-50-50 problem”: public support for NASA has hovered around 50 percent for and 50 percent against for 50 years. And that includes the supposed heyday of NASA when we were racing to beat the Russians to the moon. Even back then, there were a lot of people who didn’t see the point, and argued that the money would be better spent solving problems on Earth. Public support for NASA has never been significantly more than 60 percent or less than 40 percent.

Spudis’ point was that if our justification for exploring space is “inspiring the public,” then we will never succeed. We need to go beyond inspiration to providing economic value.

At the same time, someone (I’m not sure who) pointed out from the audience that 50 percent support is not really a bad thing. Politicians are glad to have 50 percent, because it means they can be re-elected. Popular support for a lot of our public institutions runs a good deal lower than 50 percent. So instead of asking what NASA is doing wrong, perhaps we should advertise the fact that they are doing something right. Message to politicians: If you invest money in NASA, about half of the population will support you, as they have now for half a century.

The big unknown, at this moment, is whether any politicians are listening … especially the ones that matter, who live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Tags: Apollo, Augustine Commission, base, Economy, James Jerome Hill, LEAG, Paul Spudis, Politics, railroads, resources, sustainability
Posted in Arrive, Future exploration, Meetings, NASA, Survive, Thrive | 6 Comments »

LEAG Conference, part 1

Thursday, November 19th, 2009

I’m back from the Lunar Exploration Analysis Group (LEAG) meeting in Houston, which ran from Monday through Wednesday this week. There was plenty of talk about LCROSS, which one member of the LCROSS science team calls “the little mission that did,” and also lots of discussion about the future of lunar exploration. The big theme of the meeting was sustainability: How do we go back to the moon in such a way that we can keep on going there indefinitely? Many, though not all, of the participants interpreted that question to mean: How can we make the moon economically viable? Of course, the LCROSS mission has a great deal to say about that.

Of course, the talk I looked forward to the most was by Tony Colaprete, the principal investigator for LCROSS. He gave only a few more scraps of information beyond what was reported in the news conference last Friday, but nevertheless I felt that the scraps fit together into an interesting story, which I wrote for the New Scientist website. You can find it here. I concentrated on the discovery of other volatiles besides water, because that was clearly what most interested the people I talked with.

I had to do a little soul-searching, because I go a little farther in the article than Colaprete would go in saying where the water and volatiles probably came from. But isn’t that my job as a journalist? If the experts are pretty sure about piece A, and they are pretty sure about piece B, and if there is only one way that piece A and piece B fit together and everybody knows it, shouldn’t I tell the public about that? Or do I have to wait until, ta-dah!, they hold a press conference and say they are ready to draw conclusion C?

Anyway, there were lots of other interesting and fun things at the meeting. For my blog I will concentrate on personal impressions rather than scientific news.

First, one thing I really loved about this meeting was how much joking and camaraderie there was. I don’t know whether it’s because it is a small enough community that everybody knows each other, or because certain people who are leaders in the community set the tone with their irreverence, or whether it’s just because everyone was in high spirits over the LRO and LCROSS results (and let’s not forget the Chandrayaan-1 results before that). Or maybe it’s just because geologists and planetary scientists are by nature goofy people.

Anyway, the big running joke at the meeting was Larry Taylor’s shorts. After the LCROSS press conference, he was quoted by the New York Times saying that he would have to “eat his shorts.” He was one of the scientists during the Apollo days who came to the conclusion — with good cause, I might add — that the moon rocks were “bone dry” and did not have a scrap of water. He told me that his grandfather used to say that he would “eat his shorts” if he were proved wrong, and so Larry told the newspaper reporter that he would have to eat his shorts now that water had been found in abundance. He had no expectation that this quote would be featured prominently in the Publication of Record. But then he got about 50 e-mails the next day asking if he would have a side of fries with the shorts, and what else he wanted to eat along with them. At the meeting several speakers ribbed him about this, and he finally said that he would eat them if they were served with a bottle of Guinness. Well, with unbelievable alacrity, a four-pack of Guinness beer materialized at the front of the lecture hall! I’m afraid I am not sure whether he eventually made good on his promise (I rather doubt it), but it shows how much fun people had at this meeting.

One of my favorite moments from the meeting was listening to a conversation between Wendell Mendell, another scientist who has been around since the glory days of NASA in the early 1970s, and Igor Mitrofanov, who is sort of his Russian equivalent. They swapped stories about the beginning of the Space Age. Mitrofanov described how when Sergei Korolev wanted to launch the first Russian satellite, he went to the Academy of Sciences, who of course loaded it down with more and more things that they wanted the satellite to do. It looked as if it would take forever, and Korolev was worried that the Americans would launch a satellite first. So he went to Khrushchev, the leader of the Soviet Union, and asked if he could launch a satellite that would just go beep beep beep. Khrushchev said sure, and Sputnik was born. Khruschchev didn’t think much of it, but when Sputnik flew in October 1957 and he saw how panicked the Americans were, he called Korolev back into his office and said, “I want another satellite by November!” (The over-complicated Academy of Sciences satellite did finally get launched, Mitrofanov said, but it was their third satellite.)

Mendell said that President Eisenhower was actually glad to have the Russians launch the first satellite … until he saw the furor that it caused. He wanted to be able to fly satellites over Russia to take spy pictures, because the U-2 airplanes that were doing this job were at risk of being shot down. If the Russians launched the first satellite, they couldn’t very well complain when the Americans launched one of their own. Nice plan, until everyone in the U.S. got hysterical about Sputnik, and the U.S.’s first attempt at a satellite launch blew up.

I guess these stories are probably pretty well known, at least the U.S. side, but I loved the idea of these two scientists, once separated by an Iron Curtain, being able to talk and laugh about these things.

More meeting thoughts and recollections in my next post …

Tags: Chandrayaan-1, Dwight Eisenhower, economics, humor, Igor Mitrofanov, LCROSS, LRO, New Scientist, Nikita Khrushchev, Sergei Korolyev, Sputnik, sustainability, Tony Colaprete, Wendell Mendell
Posted in Just for Fun, Meetings, NASA, Science | 4 Comments »