If we want to explore other planets, we need to contaminate them with Earth's microbes, ASAP

Does life exist beyond Earth? That's arguably the biggest question the modern science community faces. There's very good reason to believe it does. Life in the Cosmos seems statistically inevitable, but aside from the "weirdest star in the galaxy," KIC 8462852, we have yet to detect any semblance of intelligent civilization within a relative shouting distance around Earth.

On a broader scale, the challenge astronomers face is finding any life at all, anywhere in outer space. That means life forms as small as microbes and bacteria, which are known to survive even in Earth's most hostile environments, from the subfreezing regions in Antarctica, to the boiling-hot vents at the bottom of the ocean. So many scientists think microbes could be living in the Martian soil--or better yet, the water. There's only one problem:

NASA forbids sending the Mars rovers to analyze the water.

More specifically, there's an international treaty forbidding it. It refers to planetary protection, which is "the practice of protecting solar system bodies from contamination by Earth life, and protecting Earth from possible life forms that may be returned from other solar system bodies" [Source: NASA].

At a glance, this seems like a reasonable law to make. For purposes of remotely exploring other planets, namely Mars, you don't want to contaminate the planet and make a false discovery of life. On the flipside, when rockets start traveling back to Earth from Mars and elsewhere, you don't want to bring back a microbe/bacteria/virus that's going to kill off humans and other species.

But that raises a question: how can humans hope to explore the solar system if these threats and sanctions are ever-present?

While it's admirable to want to preserve the so-called pristine environments of other worlds, we must also accept the inevitable fact that if we want to live beyond Earth, we will have to contaminate Mars, and it's better to do it sooner rather than later.

Finding extraterrestrial life will be an amazing moment in science. There's no doubt about that. But for the long run, we need to think about human exploration and humans inhabiting other planets. We need to accept the reality that Mars simply does not have any enduring surface ecosystems--environments that we would need to worry about destroying. If there were trees and grass and other animals that didn't share our biology, and our contamination, or mere presence there ended up killing those life forms, that would be a big problem. But until we find a functioning, obvious ecosystem, I say we go forth.

Why would introducing Earth life (microbes, bacteria, etc) be good for us inhabiting planets? And why would it be good to start early? Simple: to prepare the way. To begin creating an environment we can survive in and spread Earth life to. It would be one of the first steps of terraforming planets like Mars: nourishing the soil.

Bacteria and microbes, we know, are capable of adapting to hostile environments, and can do so very quickly. And another thing microscopic organisms are good at doing is multiplying very, very fast. Growing colonies of microbial life and introducing them into the Martian soil would allow plants to grow. There's plenty of carbon-dioxide on Mars, so with incremental exposure, there would be no trouble growing plants--and thus changing the composition of Mars' atmosphere to a breathable one (Mars' atmosphere is currently composed of approximately 95.3% CO2, but it's very thin and, as a result, doesn't trap heat well, compared with CO2's effects on Earth and Venus).

Along with the introduction of microbial colonies and imported chemicals and greenhouse gases, and eventually plants, the Martian soil would release trapped gas. On a large scale, this would thicken Mars' atmosphere to a sustainable pressure and temperature, and life would explode--in a good way. Under those conditions, Earth life would need only take root, and we could turn Mars into a second Earth. Water would condense out of the soil, forming lakes and streams and possibly oceans, allowing for even more diversity to flourish.

Some would argue that humans going to another planet would just spell destruction for that planet, that humans are a disease that needs to be extinguished. This is the most pessimistic thing anybody can say, really, but it's a sad reality that our society has seen science take a backseat in the world's priorities to the point where people literally think going to Mars would "kill the planet."

This simply isn't true. We learn from our mistakes, and as society and science advances, so does our appreciation for nature and the universe. Humanity's recent history is a lesson in progress, and the more we develop, the more careful and precise we will be. We wouldn't be killing Mars; we'd be developing a world where life as we know it could survive. A second inhabited world on which to preserve life. It is our duty as an intelligent, cognisant species to spread life wherever it can take root.

The window of opportunity to spread life is opening wider, and we must take it while we can. We cannot hold back. We must carry life to those far off, distant worlds.

I gave an assembly to 5th graders about writing science-fiction

On January 29, I gave an assembly to 76 fifth graders at a school in Pittsburgh about writing science-fiction! I was excited to share what I've learned from writing over the past 12 years, and hopefully inspired them to pursue science in their own futures!

Here's the slideshow I presented. In real-time, it was about 40 minutes, with time for questions at the end.

It went really well! Lots of great questions, and the kids were very excited about seeing things like the rocket landings and knowing that their generation will be among the first on Mars.

They asked lots of questions about what I write about and why I write about those things, and I think the question that stuck out the most was, "What is your favorite thing you get to do as an author?" I said, "To teach and inspire other people to learn more about science."

That's what these books have become to me: an outlet to show people how exciting science and space can be and help us pave the way for future generations.

I hope I get this opportunity again! It was such a rewarding experience :D

The Physics of the Embassy Universe, Part 1

This is Part 1 of a blog series dedicated to the scientific concepts I use within my science-fiction novels Embassy and Resonance, Books 1 and 2 of the Recovery Series

TPEU #1: The Barrier Law

I’m not gonna lie: I didn’t think up the Barrier Law until halfway through writing Resonance, Book 2 in the Recovery Series. But when it comes down to it, Barrier Law is my favorite concept of the entire series (tied for first, actually. There’s one big concept that’s yet to be introduced…)

The Barrier Law (as it’s called in Resonance) is what allows space stations to travel in FTL (faster than light speed). In the novel, dark matter acts as a non-Newtonian substance. What’s a non-Newtonian substance, you ask? Have you ever seen what happens when you mix cornstarch and water? When you run or jump on the mixture, nothing happens! Except maybe your feet get a bit gooey. But when you stop moving, you sink right through! (and it’s VERY difficult to get out).

Watch this video to see non-Newtonian Fluids in action!

A non-Newtonian fluid is a substance that has variable viscosity. Put simply, it acts like a solid under certain conditions, and a liquid under others.

So how does this relate to the Barrier Law?

As I said, the Barrier Law allows certain massive spacecraft to travel in FTL to achieve interstellar travel between planets. In my book series, dark matter acts as a non-Newtonian substance, meaning, under most conditions, spacecraft will travel through it and not interact with it at all….but under certain conditions, spacecraft are able to use dark matter both as an energy source AND as a “highway” to another star system.

What ARE those conditions?

There are a number of conditions that must be met in order for spacecraft to interact with dark matter.

First, and most obvious: there needs to be dark matter to interact with. DUH!! Luckily for the characters in my books, dark matter is pretty much everywhere….outside of a solar system. For sake of the physical laws in the Recovery Series, dark matter is not massively present within solar systems due to the influence of each solar system’s sun.

To reach a spot that has dark matter, spacecraft must fly outside the heliosphere – the area of solar wind influence for any given star – before they find a patch of dark matter stable enough to interact with and be propelled into FTL.

The spacecraft in my books have engines that can accelerate them to 61.8% light-speed within the heliosphere…but outside the heliosphere, they aren’t much use.

But that’s okay!! Because traveling at 61.8% light-speed is the velocity required to interact with dark matter – our non-Newtonian substance. Any slower, and the spacecraft would pass right through. (And the engines physically can’t accelerate spacecraft to faster than 61.8%. In fact, they deliberately adjust for gravity assist, slowing the craft to prevent it from traveling any faster).

What happens now?

When spacecraft interact with dark matter, as I described, it acts as a “solid” substance. Imagine some sort of low-density cosmic goop. You’re still traveling through space-time, but now you’re pushing through this gel of dark matter.

And that's where stuff gets weird.

Another set of the spacecraft’s engines can now “inhale” dark matter and use it as fuel. The thrust provided by this dark matter fuel accelerates the spacecraft to approximately 166x the speed of light, or a little less than 1 light-year every 2 Earth days (just about 53 hours, to be exact. In fact, the galactic calendars in my books are measured in hours, not days, because hours are measured the same on all planets…but that’s a post for another time. Hehe, time).

Dark matter fills up most of the galaxy, so running out of an energy source (soon, at least) isn’t a problem. What IS a problem is general relativity – the relative motion part.

I’ll get to that in a second, but let’s take a quick step back: when the spacecraft enters the dark matter, it begins to “drag” the dark matter with it, and, inevitably, there’s a “barrier” that forms a sort of cosmic tunnel (wormholes, anyone?).

No, not a wormhole…not exactly. Don’t think of the Barrier in my books as a wormhole. No stargates here.

The Barrier starts out wide, but shrinks in diameter as the spacecraft pushes forward and stretches out the length of the tunnel. So non-stop trips across the galaxy are impossible. The maximum distance any spacecraft can travel is roughly 20 light-years…so a bunch of pit stops are in order.

Back to General Relativity.

Remember how I said that traveling slower than 61.8% light-speed means you can’t interact with dark matter? Well, in my books, there are theories that say describing how something vastly different will happen if you exert more force on the Barrier (physicists and engineers in the books are still unsure, but they’ve run models to make predictions).

If an object, say, a Molter (equivalent of a fighter jet in space) were to depart from the spacecraft’s hangar and accelerate (thus traveling with stronger force relative to the spacecraft), theories predict that the dark matter barrier would rupture in a sort of explosion. Maybe the Barrier would collapse. Maybe the energy would rip apart everything inside the barrier. Maybe, with enough force, it could cause an explosion with all the energy that’s being channeled into powering the spacecraft.

Basically, physicists are in agreement: DO NOT. BREAK. THE BARRIER.

Put simply, pilots free-flying outside a spacecraft during interstellar transit have a specific range they’re allowed to fly in, and flying too close to the edge of the Barrier is definitely frowned upon. It’s never happened, and nobody is eager to find out if the theories are true (because the only way to measure interactions with the Barrier and dark matter is to be inside it at the same time).

How do you drop out of the Barrier?

Dropping out of the Barrier is easy! The spacecraft decelerates, the force interacting with the dark matter lessens, and it returns to its “fluid” condition, the non-interactive condition.

Remember how a spacecraft cannot interact with dark matter until it breaches the heliosphere of a star? Well, the same is not true in reverse. A spacecraft can drag the dark matter barrier into a heliosphere. The Barrier, of course, will gradually weaken under these conditions, but it’s possible.

That being said, it’s standard protocol to drop out of the Barrier well before entering a heliosphere – for a number of reasons:

First and foremost, you don’t want to smash into a star, planet, or asteroid field. Cruising at 166x light-speed isn’t exactly maneuverable, even at large distances within a solar system. Adjusting course on a large scale within the Barrier would generate too much force to remain contained.

Second, remember, normal matter can interact with the Barrier in this condition. That means it has a significant amount of gravity and a significant amount of energy, which would be devastating to stars and planets, not to mention massively disrupting the orbits of planets and debris. It just wouldn’t be a happy ending for anyone.

It would go boom…probably…and that would be bad.

So by decelerating a spacecraft well before entering a star’s heliosphere, you harmlessly slip through the Barrier, the dark matter returns to its normal state, and everybody avoids having a bad day.

So let's recap:

• In my books, dark matter acts as a non-Newtonian substance under certain conditions.

• Barrier Law refers to how a spacecraft interacts with and manages interstellar travel within a “barrier” of dark matter.

• The spacecraft must be traveling at 61.8% light-speed, and exit the heliosphere to generate a barrier.

• Once within the Barrier, it’s theorized that exerting substantial extra force/attempting to achieve a greater velocity will cause the Barrier to collapse, rip, or explode.

• Traveling inside the Barrier allows a spacecraft to reach a peak velocity of 166x light-speed, or 1 light-year every 53 hours.

• The diameter of the Barrier decreases over time, so a spacecraft must drop out after 20 light years. In order to travel from Artaans to Belvun (the furthest travel distance in my books), a spacecraft would need to drop out of the Barrier 2x before reaching its final destination.

• Drop outs must occur near a solar system so the spacecraft can use the energy from the nearby star to accelerate back to 61.8%.

• Dropping out too far away is essentially a death sentence.

• Dragging the Barrier into a solar system will obliterate the stability of that solar system due to its gravity and the energy contained within it.

• To drop out, a spacecraft need only decelerate back to below 61.8% light-speed.

-----------------------------------------

So there you go! The first of what will hopefully be several posts about the science and physical concepts in my books, Embassy and Resonance.

I hope you enjoyed reading about this! At some point in the future, I plan to compile all of these into a book/ebook that you can add to your collection!

If you have any questions regarding Barrier Law, just ask! I’m open to all questions and will explain whatever you need me to.

If this piqued your interest, please check out my books!

Sincerely,

S. Alex Martin

-----------------------------------------

Purchase EMBASSY

Purchase RESONANCE

EXPERIENCE DALIONA (website)

The story of SpaceX's attempts to land a rocket, and what it means for the space industry

In the real world, the third time isn't always the charm, but it's a giant step in the right direction. Elon Musk, the founder and CEO of SpaceX, knows that better than anyone else.

Take 2: SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket comes in to land on an autonomous barge,
named "Just Read the Instructions." It would land off balance and tip over,
then ultimately explode. (April 14, 2015)

by S. Alex Martin

Rockets are really, really good at going up. The trick is bringing them back down. Most modern rockets work in two stages. The first stage propels the payload (satellites, supplies for the International Space Station, etc) into Low Earth Orbit, and the second stage carries the payload to its destination.

Normally when the first stage of a Falcon 9 rocket separates from the second stage at 50 miles up, where it's traveling about 6,300 mph (7,400 kmh), which is Mach-10, or 10x the speed of sound. The first stage does a U-turn, climbing to between 90 and 120 miles high, then begins its descent. The engines slow the rocket down to around Mach-6, then continue with controlled backburns and bring the nearly 250-foot tall stage to a complete stop the instant before touching down on target.

Achieving this has been compared to throwing a pencil over the Empire State Building and having it land straight up-and-down in a shoebox on the other side.

Source: SpaceX

SpaceX began testing its return maneuvers in September 2013, and completed four experiments without using a barge or landing pad. The goal was to collect data about GPS reliability, response lag, and reverse-thrusting efficiency. Coupled with the Grasshopper Program, SpaceX honed in all the key elements of landing a rocket.

A "grasshopper" rocket hovers in midair before returning to its launch pad.
Source: SpaceX

Then, in January 2015, SpaceX attempted the first official Falcon 9 landing onto a barge in the Atlantic Ocean. In order to attempt this, SpaceX had to bring the margin of error for landing on a predetermined target from 6.2 miles (the error of its previous tests), down to a mere 33 feet. While the landing was ultimately a failure, the Falcon 9 rocket did reach the barge. Watch the Video.

On the second attempt, April 2015, the Falcon 9 rocket came even closer to landing. While the January attempt had come in nearly sideways, the April attempt was more-or-less standing up--but its horizontal velocity caused it to careen sideways right after touching down. Watch the Video.

June 28, 2015--Elon Musk's 44th birthday--was supposed to be the third barge-at-sea landing attempt. The launch, meant to resupply ISS, seemed perfect, but almost three minutes after liftoff, the rocket disintegrated due to a strut that snapped during the ascent, releasing a container of pressurized helium into the rocket's liquid oxygen tank and causing an overpressurization event. Watch the Video.

I'd like to exchange my gift: an overpressurization event caused the Falcon 9 to
disintegrate three minutes after launch on Elon Musk's birthday in late June 2015.
Source: NASA

SpaceX entered a hiatus, postponing future launches. Over the next six months, they designed and built an upgraded version of the Falcon 9, dubbed Full Thrust. The first launch of this upgraded Falcon 9 was immortalized on December 21, 2015, when the first stage carried 11 Orb-Com satellites into Low Earth Orbit, then turned around and made a perfect landing on solid ground nine minutes after launching. It marked the first time in history a rocket of this size and velocity had ever returned undamaged to Earth.

Upon inspections, Elon Musk announced the rocket was "ready to fire again," but noted that this particular Falcon 9 would never launch again. It will likely be added to a museum's collection of historic rockets. Watch the Video.

A mission control operator declared, "The Falcon has landed," seconds
after Falcon 9's successful touchdown December 21, 2015.
Source: SpaceX

What does this success mean for the space industry? Cost. Every single rocket that has ever been launched has been scrapped as trash. It costs over $100 million to build and launch a single rocket, then it's never used again. Think of it as driving to work and buying a new car every single day. That is, inevitably, unsustainable. A reusable rocket costs only $200,000 to refuel, and an estimated half-million to refurbish, rather than approximately $60 million to rebuild completely.

On top of that is a price tag of $50-$60 million to launch the Falcon 9 into space -- and that's cheap in the space industry. NASA's space shuttle cost an average of $1.5 billion per launch. To bring commercial launches down into the low tens-of-millions would save money and allow even faster progress, with more and more launches and better R&D in the space industry.

So that's why all eyes were on SpaceX Sunday, January 17, 2016. It was SpaceX's fourth attempt to land on a barge at sea, this time in the Pacific Ocean. The rocket was an older Falcon 9, not the newest upgraded version like the one that successfully landed in December.

The primary mission of the launch, to deliver the Jason-3 ocean mapping satellite into orbit, was a success. And the rocket made it to the barge, which was 200 miles off the coast of California. It looked like the landing was a success, until one of the support legs snapped and the rocket fell over in what's being hailed as one of the coolest explosions in rocketry.

Source: Elon Musk

In Elon's terms, RUDs are: Rapid Unscheduled Disassemblies. That's geek-speak for "big fiery explosion." But it's exactly what you would expect from a guy who's trying to change the world, and having fun doing it. He says he's "optimistic about [the] upcoming ship landing," slated for February 6 at the earliest. Click Here for a Full 2016 Launch Schedule.

UPDATE: The SES-9 mission was delayed four times, but finally launched on March 4, 2016.  The recovery of the first stage did not succeed due to a necessary re-allotment of fuel to get the satellite into GeoSync faster.

-----------------------------------------------
LIKE ZENITH NOW ON FACEBOOK
FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER
FOLLOW ME ON TUMBLR

The "alien megastructure" star is back, and even more mysterious than before

After months of analysis, including looking through "glass plate" records dating back more than a century, scientists have ruled out comets accounting for the extreme light fluctuations. But what they discovered is even more puzzling.

Artist's rendering of a hypothetical Dyson Sphere.

by S. Alex Martin

Remember the "alien megastructure" star? The weird one whose light dipped by 20% at irregular intervals and the scientific consensus came to be clouds of orbiting comets?

After months of examinations, the cloud of comets has been ruled out as “completely implausible” given the size and density required for the swarm of comets to be in order to cause this phenomenon. According to Bradley Schaefer, of Louisiana State University, it would have to be “648,000 comets, each 200 kilometers [120 miles] wide.”

Schaefer and other researchers went back through records dating through the past century, located the star, and, after thorough analysis, made a startling discovery: KIC 8462852 has decreased in overall luminosity by about 20% over the past century, dimming by roughly 0.193 magnitudes.

Luminosity measurements recorded over the course of a century.
(Source: Bradley Schaefer, arXiv.org)

Now, although stars do go through cycles throughout their lives, overall luminosity essentially doesn’t change, especially not by such a huge margin. And even if it were a cloud of dust or asteroids or comets, you’d expect the luminosity to increase, because gravity would clump things together, therefore creating more unobstructed space for light to shine through. In fact, there would need to be 10,000 to 10,000,000 times MORE dust in the same region today than a century ago to account for the dimming.

A cloud of comets has been dismissed as the cause of light fluctuations

So is a Dyson Sphere--and thus, intelligent life--back on the table?

Schaefer remains skeptical, as we all should be, “as he thinks aliens wouldn’t be able to build something capable of covering a fifth of a star in just a century.” There’s also the issue that if there was a structure, we should be able to detect signatures from across narrow microwave and short-wave infrared bands--and we’re not.

Let’s go back to Schaefer’s point about a century being too short a time span to construct a Dyson Sphere (as this megastructure is often called, one which surrounds a star to capture and store energy). If an intelligent civilization more advanced than us is capable of constructing a Dyson Sphere-like structure, would it be so implausible to think that they could have the capability to construct it relatively quickly?

I’ll leave that up to you. For now, comets seem to be out of the question, and the mystery of KIC 8462852 remains with no plausible explanation.

[Cited Article Source: New Scientist]