No, my friends, unfortunately I still lack the time to feed this blog properly, with the long posts I plan to write. But in the meanwhile I may as well call your attention to a couple of posts in a blog called Daily Kos, which gather together a very, very nice set of photos (mostly) of pretty much all of the Solar System planets, satellites and minor bodies that have been imaged by spacecraft thus far.

You can find the first part here, showing us the planets Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter and Saturn, the planetary moons Luna, Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, Mimas, Enceladus, Tethys, Dione, Rhea and Titan, the minor moons Phobos, Deimos, Amalthea, Thebe, Pan, Daphnis, Atlas, Prometheus, Pandora, Epimetheus, Janus, Telesto, Calypso and Helene, and the minor bodies Itokawa, Eros, Ida (and Dactyl), Gaspra, Mathilde, Šteins, Annefrank, Borrelly, Wild 2, Tempel 1 and Halley.

The second part, found here, features the planets Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Haumea, Makemake and Eris, the planetary moons Iapetus, Miranda, Ariel, Umbriel, Titania, Oberon, Triton and Charon, the minor moons Hyperion, Phoebe, Puck, Larissa and Proteus and the minor body (albeit dwarf planet candidate) Quaoar, plus a bunch of schematics and plots.

Wonderful stuff. Enjoy.

If you follow regularly this blog, you would know by now that I am fascinated with satellite images. Satellites help us see what is happening in our skies and not only; sending satellites in the outer space we can examine the surface of other planets and what is happening in their “skies”. They also send us images, amazing images, like this one.

Possible Cyclic Bedding in Arabia Terra (ESP_014033_1910) Credit: NASA/JPL/University of Arizona

NASA’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter blasted off from Cape Canaveral in 2005, to study the history of water on Mars. The HiRISE camera onboard the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter is the most powerful one of its kind ever flown on a planetary mission. Its high resolution allows us to see Mars like never before.  It can spot something as small as a dinner table and that helps scientists to identify obstacles such as large rocks that could jeopardize the safety of future landers and rovers, including the Phoenix mission.

A new study just published online in Nature Geoscience suggests that the Antarctic ice loss has been accelerated the recent years.

“Accurate quantification of Antarctic ice-sheet mass balance and its contribution to global sea-level rise remains challenging,” the study begins, “because in situ measurements over both space and time are sparse.”

GRACE mass rate over Antarctica (units of centimetres of equivalent water height change per year, cm yr-1) after the PGR effect is removed. Time series from four grid points (A, B, C and D) are selected for analysis. Image Credit: Nature geoscience

The authors – J. L. Chen, C. R. Wilson, D. Blankenship & B. D. Tapley – say that the “Antarctic ice mass balance has long been a controversial topic, because of difficulties in estimating it, and because of its importance in understanding global climate and sea-level rise. At various times, estimates have disagreed on the sign of the mass balance, as well as its magnitude.”

The scientists analysed data coming from Nasa’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), a space-based technique of gravity change – it precisely measure the planet’s shifting water masses and map their effects on Earth’s gravity effect – which provides direct mass-change estimates at monthly intervals since 2002.

GRACE estimates of Antarctic mass balance have been variable, ranging from -80 to -152 Gt yr^-1. Nevertheless, and despite the uncertainty associated with the East Antarctic Ice Sheet (EAIS) estimated mass rate, from both GRACE and other remote-sensing data, all “estimates show significant ice loss over the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) since 2002 with estimated rates in the range -96 to -148 Gt yr^-1”

GRACE data analysis show that

“two distinct regions with negative rates in the Amundsen Sea Embayment (ASE) and in Graham Land of the Antarctic Peninsula (points A and B). The ASE negative rate is the dominant feature for the entire Antarctic continent. Negative rates are also present over the EAIS, especially along the coast in Wilkes Land (point C) and Victoria Land, although magnitudes are much smaller than in the ASE and Antarctic Peninsula. Positive rates south of the ASE are probably due to underestimated PGR in the IJ05 model (Ivins, E.R., and James, T.S., Antarctic glacial isostatic adjustment:  A new assessment, Antarctic Science, 17, 541-553, 2005). A small positive rate is present in Enderby Land (Point D), where an earlier GRACE estimate (+8016 Gt yr^-1) was so large as to suggest an unmodelled PGR contribution.”

The scientists indicate that their estimate agree with a recent result “using InSAR mass fluxes in 2006, combined with snowfall estimates from a regional atmospheric climate model, ” and show that there is an acceleration of ice loss over the entire continent in recent years.

Source and further reading:

Accelerated Antarctic ice loss from satellite gravity measurements, J. L. Chen, C. R. Wilson, D. Blankenship & B. D. Tapley, Nature Geoscience advance online publication Published online: 22 November 2009, doi:10.1038/ngeo694

“The Augustine Commission for Dummies”

(Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4. Part 5. Wrap Up.)

Given the intent of the politicians to fight for the funding their districts currently receive from the Constellation Program (CxP – the current program developing the Ares I and Ares V rockets) as well as go begging for more, and given the budget constraints the NASA faces, it is instructive to see where this course will end up. In the Senate, Richard Shelby has announced his intention to fight for Constellation and will try to increase funding to the Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama. Senator Bill Nelson of Florida is fighting for Kennedy Space Center and all the jobs and funding there. In the House, Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona and Pete Olson of Texas have dug in their heels and reiterated their backing of the Constellation program (See Space News, 21 November 2009).

All this is taking place against the backdrop of the Augustine Commission’s Final Report, which has made it clear that Ares I is over budget and underpowered. As Jeff Greason said at the Committee deliberations, if Santa Clause gave us Ares I and Ares V tomorrow, we would have to scrap them immediately because they would be too expensive to operate.

The Forum at NasaSpaceFlight has been for many years the authoritative site for information on all things NASA. It has been home to the rebel alliance of NASA and industry engineers that have advocated the in-line shuttle derived launch vehicle for the past four years.

The source of this concern was former Administrator Michael Griffin’s decision in 2005 to replace the dual-launch, in-line shuttle derived architecture recommended by NASA engineers, with his personal choice of a small Ares I and a very large Ares V. Instead of building one rocket using existing shuttle components as Congress had directed, he would build two brand new rockets. This decision came just two weeks before the scheduled release of the NASA document on the Constellation program.

Now, four years later in 2009, when the in-line shuttle derived launch vehicle should have been making its first flight, we are five or six years away from Ares I making its first flight. The Shuttle is scheduled for retirement next year and America will have to buy seats on the Russian Soyuz to get to the International Space Station. And the International Space Station is scheduled for de-commissioning in 2015 and would be de-orbited into the Pacific Ocean.

This reality gave birth to the Augustine Commission and its Final Report. We have covered in detail the findings of the Committee. Now we look to consider the possible outcomes.

Philip Metschan (writing as ‘Phoegh’), a long time contributor to the Forum at NasaSpaceFlight, has produced a marvelous interactive series of graphics available at directlauncher.com that illustrate the options identified by the Augustine Commission.

The Budget and Time Line for these options are given in the following table. Included are destinations beyond low Earth orbit (LEO) and the impact of each option on the existing workforce.

We can draw the following conclusions, which are illustrated in the Graphics mentioned earlier and shown below. We start with Option 1, the Program of Record (POR – Constellation) and the funding level provided in FY 2010:

• Option 1 – Ares I crew vehicle is ready a year after the ISS is de-orbited (2015) and Ares V is completed in 2028 with no funds to conduct exploration. There is no Moon in the picture.
• Option 2 – Scrap Ares I and substitute Commercial Crew Access to LEO. The money saved is used to keep the ISS operating until 2020. Ares V is completed in 2028 with no funds to conduct exploration. There is no Moon in the picture.
• Option 3 – Add $3 Billion per year to the existing program. Ares I crew vehicle is ready a year after the ISS is de-orbited (2015) and Ares V is completed in 2019. The Moon is reached in 2025, but no other destinations beyond LEO can be funded.
• Option 4 – Add $3 Billion per year to the existing program. Scrap Ares I and substitute Commercial Crew Access to LEO. The money saved is used to keep the ISS operating until 2020. Ares V is completed in 2023. The Moon is reached in 2030, but no other destinations beyond LEO can be funded.
• Option 4B – Add $3 Billion per year to the existing program. Extend the Shuttle to 2015. Scrap Ares I and substitute Commercial Crew Access to LEO. The money saved is used to keep the ISS operating until 2020. Ares V is completed in 2023. Develop the Propellant Depot by 2026. The Moon is reached in 2030.
• Option 5A – Add $3 Billion per year to the existing program. Scrap Ares I and substitute Commercial Crew Access to LEO. The money saved is used to keep the ISS operating until 2020. Scrap Ares V in favor of a smaller Ares V Lite, which is completed in 2023. Visit EML-1 or EML-2 in 2026. Visit a Near Earth Object (NEO) Sometime in the Future.
• Option 5B – Add $3 Billion per year to the existing program. Scrap Ares I and substitute Commercial Crew Access to LEO. The money saved is used to keep the ISS operating until 2020. Scrap Ares V in favor of a commercial heavy launch capability, which is completed in 2021. Develop the Propellant Depot by 2024. Visit a Near Earth Object (NEO) in 2026 and Phobos in 2028. Return to the Moon in 2029.
• Option 5C – Add $3 Billion per year to the existing program. Scrap Ares I and substitute Commercial Crew Access to LEO. The money saved is used to keep the ISS operating until 2020. Scrap Ares V in favor of a the Direct Team’s Jupiter 241, which is completed in 2022. Visit EML-1 or EML-2 in 2023. Develop the Propellant Depot by 2024. Visit a Near Earth Object (NEO) in 2027 and Phobos in 2029. Return to the Moon in 2030.

Those are the options explored by the Augustine Commission in their Final Report.

Notice, however, that there is one more slide, Option 5D. This is the architecture that was presented to the Augustine Commission during their first public session on 17 June 2009 by the Direct Team. It provides for:

• Add $1 Billion per year to the existing program.
• Extend Shuttle until 2012.
• Scrap Ares I and develop the Jupiter Core (Jupiter 130) for carrying crew on Orion to LEO and ISS by 2014.
• Develop Commercial Crew Access to LEO to replace the Jupiter 130 by 2015. Use Jupiter 130 for ferrying the few large payloads needed by ISS.
• Continue ISS operations until 2020.
• Scrap Ares V in favor of the Upper Stage for the Jupiter Core (Jupiter 241 or Jupiter 246), which is completed in 2017.
• Visit EML-1 or EML-2 in 2018.
• Orbit the Moon in 2019.
• Visit a Near Earth Object (NEO) in 2022.
• Visit Phobos in 2025.
• Develop the Propellant Depot by 2028.

The key here is that the goal of expansion of human civilization into the Solar System is better served, is accomplished sooner, and costs less. Indeed, even without the additional $1 Billion per year, only the extension of the Shuttle operation need be eliminated.

Final Conclusions

• Options 1, 2 and 3, which are favored by the politicians with space flight facilities, get us nowhere and cost far too much.
• Options 4 and 4B get us to the Moon, but neither builds infrastructure for support of future exploration.
• Options 5A, 5B and 5C builds the skills and infrastructure for space exploration, but leave us a crew to LEO gap of five to six years.
• Option 5D builds the skills and infrastructure for space exploration, reduces the crew to LEO gap to one or two years, and gives the international community the ability to descend to the surface of the Moon and Mars.

Time is of the Essence

Finally, this note about the political realities. First, if a decision is delayed for four to six months while the politicians fight for every last bit of funding they want, the infrastructure on which the Jupiter program builds will be dismantled and Options 4B, 5C and 5D will be eliminated.

Second, Congress will likely decide that the Constellation program as currently envisioned is too costly for what will be developed and not worth throwing more money down the drain. Options 1, 2, 3, 4B and 5A will be eliminated.

Thus, only commercial crew and cargo capabilities will be funded. NASA will be reduced to research and contracting for services. The Marshall Space Flight Facility will have little purpose. And the politicians will lose most of the jobs and funding that their districts currently enjoy.

(Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4. Part 5. Wrap Up.)

At 10:33 PM Phoenix time, we have eight (8) minutes and counting until a planned hold at T minus 4 minutes in the launch of the Atlas 5 carrying the Intelsat 14 satellite.

Intelsat 14 under construction. Credit: ULA TV

T minus 8 Minutes. Credit: ULA TV

Launch is scheduled beginning at 10:50 PM Phoenix time. Weather is satisfactory.

We have a new T minus zero scheduled at 11:15 PM Phoenix time. Weather is green through the window. Extended hold due to reprogramming the flight computer (to take into account balloon data) taking longer than expected.

Weather Balloon Profile. Credit: ULA TV

Wind shear aloft. Credit: ULA TV

And the weather information updates are taking a long time. New launch time is 11:35 PM.

Wind shear aloft is a problem. Flight profile would not be good. A new balloon has been launched, and we are awaiting a new launch time.

And the weather aloft has now pushed the launch back to 11:55 PM Phoenix time. The US Air Force Range has approved the change. It is going to be a late night for all concerned.

Eye Candy Details. Credit: ULA TV

More Details, at T minus 4 minutes and holding for weather. Credit: ULA TV

The latest word from ULA is that “Things are improving with regard to developing a new flight program. They’re going to have one more shot to create a new program if this one doesn’t work, that will take us to the end of the window.”

All of this is based on the changing wind profiles aloft.

Weather aloft has improved. The launch director is polling all systems prior to coming out of the hold.

… and we are GO for LAUNCH!

T minus 3:48 and counting. Credit: ULA TV	Ignition. Credit: ULA TV
Launch. Credit: ULA TV	Ascent. Credit: ULA TV
Animation – Centaur Burn. Credit: ULA TV	Mid Course Correction. Credit: ULA TV

All systems are go. We are on the way to Geo Stationary Orbit.

Good Night All.

(Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4. Part 5. Wrap Up.)

In Part 1, we looked at the pieces strewn about our living room floor. In Part 2, we examined the Goals and Destinations in Chapter 3.0. And in Part 3, the three current Human Space Flight programs were reviewed (International Space Station, the Space Shuttle and the Constellation Program). In Part 4, we looked at the launch vehicles examined by The Augustine Commission.

Chapter 6 of the Augustine Commission Final Report deals with Program Options and Evaluation. This is one of the many contentious issues commentators have with the Commission. While they did select five possible exploration programs (Chapter 6), and while they did evaluate various launch vehicles (Chapter 5), the Committee seems to have ignored the possibility that different launch vehicles have greater or lesser ability to cover the five exploration programs. This failure may in the end, prove to be disastrous for human space exploration. As we write, the Space Shuttle infrastructure is being actively dismantled. The end result of failing to evaluate the physical infrastructure and the human infrastructure capable of supporting a Shuttle derived architecture may be that the United States is left with no heavy lift human space flight capability for at least the next several decades. We may have surrendered our space faring capability to Europe, China, Russia, India and Japan.

6.1 Evaluation Criteria

As noted by the Commission:

The Committee did not intend that the evaluation would generate a single numerical score; rather, it would provide a basis for comparison across options, highlighting the opportunities and challenges associated with each. Assigning weights to individual figures of merit is within the purview of the ultimate decision-makers.

Three primary evaluation dimensions were identified:

• Benefits to Stakeholders
• Risk
• Budget Realities

These three dimensions were expanded into 12 criteria for comparing the options.

• Exploration Preparation
• Technology Innovation
• Science Knowledge
• Expanding and Protecting Human Civilization
• Economic Expansion
• Global Partnerships
• Public Engagement
• Schedule and Programmatic Risk
• Mission Safety Challenges
• Workforce Impact
• Programmatic Sustainability
• Life-Cycle Cost

6.2 Key Decisions and Integrated Options

6.2.1 Key Decisions

1. What should be the future of the Space Shuttle?
2. What should be the future of the International Space Station (ISS)?
3. On what should the next heavy-lift launch vehicle be based?
4. How should crews be carried to low-Earth orbit?
5. What is the most practicable strategy for exploration beyond low-Earth orbit?

6.2.2 Integrated Options

The Committee identified five basic options: One based on the Program of Record (POR – Constellation – Ares I and V, Orion and Altair), and four alternatives. Options 2 and 3 were budget compatable alternatives to the POR. Option 4 was a Moon First program (with two variations), and Option 5 was the Flexible Path (avoiding the gravity well of the Moon).

6.2.3 Methodology for Analyzing the Integrated Options

Two budgets were used. The “Constrained Budget” used the FY 2010 budget, while the “Less Constrained Budget” allowed for an increase by 2014 of $3 Billion per year higher than FY 2010.

6.2.4 Reference Cases of the Entirely Unconstrained Program of Record

The Program of Record was evaluated and found to be a total of $45 Billion over the FY 2010 budget by 2020, wherein it is $5 Billion a year over FY 2010 in 2016 and $7 Billion per year over FY 2010 in 2019.

6.3 Integrated Options Constrained to the FY 2010 Budget

6.3.1 Evaluation of Integrated Options 1 and 2

Option 1 was found to allow for rocket development, but lacked funds for exploration. Option 2 extends the lifetime of the ISS, delays rocket development, and has no funds for exploration.

6.3.2 Examination of alternate budget guidance

The Committee found no alternatives to Options 1 or 2 that were viable under the FY 2010 budget. This conclusion has been disputed.

6.4 Moon First Integrated Options Fit to the Less-Constrained Budget

6.4.1 Evaluation of Integrated Options 3 and 4

Option 3 was to execute the POR under a less constrained budget. The ISS is de-orbited in 2010, and the Shuttle flies the remaining missions into 2011. Human lunar return occurs in the mid 2020s and the lunar base becomes operation late in the decade. An alternate extending ISS to 2020 was found to push these dates out by three to four more years.

Option 4 uses the less constrained budget, scraps Ares I and substitutes commercial crew services by 2016 It extends the ISS to 2020. Ares V is scrapped in favor of a dual-launch Ares V Lite vehicle for lunar missions.

Option 4A retires the Shuttle in 2011, while Option 4B extends the Shuttle to 2015 and develops a Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift vehicle in place of Ares V Lite.

6.4.2 Examination of the key decision on the ISS extension

Given the International Partnerships that have been developed, and the fact that the extension to 2020 would only delay the lunar return by a few years, the Committee found that the extension provides greater value than ending the ISS mission.

6.4.3 Examination of the key decision on Ares V vs. Ares V Lite dual launch

Baseline Ares V has more launch capability than the Saturn V, but current NASA studies show that when used in combination with Ares I, it does not have enough launch capability to robustly deliver the currently planned landing and surface systems to the Moon.

The Committee concluded that Ares V Lite represents less development risk, likely will reduce costs and provides more substantial margin for the lunar mission.

6.4.4 Examination of the key decision on the provision of crew transport to low-Earth orbit

Commercial crew services, based on a high-reliability rocket with a capsule and launch escape system could significantly reduce development costs, as well as lower operating costs.

6.4.5 Examination of the key question on Shuttle extension

The Committee favored early retirement of the Shuttle (2010 or 2011), although they noted several advantages to Shuttle extension to 2015, including up-mass and down-mass capability and workforce retention.

6.5 Flexible Path Integrated Options Fit to the Less-Constrained Budget

6.5.1 Evaluation of Integrated Option 5

Option 5 operates the Shuttle into 2011 and extends the International Space Station mission until 2020. A variety of destinations beyond low earth orbit are possible. The Committee developed three variants of this option.

• Option 5A develops the Ares V Lite, visits the Lagrange points, near Earth objects, on-orbit refueling and achieves a lunar return by the end of the 2020s.
• Option 5B develops commercial heavy lift capability, restructures NASA, and follows a similar mission profile as 5A, but on a slower time line.
• Option 5C scraps Ares V Lite and develops a Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift vehicle. 5C follows a similar mission profile as 5A, but on a slower time line.

6.5.2 Examination of the key question on Ares V family vs. Shuttle-derived heavy launcher

While the Shuttle derived in-line launch vehicle (SDLV) with two four-segment solid rocket motors (SRM) and the 8.4 meter external tank (ET) was the 2005 ESAS candidate for the cargo vehicle, it was forced to evolve into the Ares V due to the problems encountered with the underpowered Ares I. For some reason, the Committee decided that in order to match the capabilities of the Ares V, or the Ares V Lite dual-launch mission, that there had to be three SDLV launches. Therefore, operations would be more costly.

This is a clear Committee miss, as the current planned lunar return missions can be accomplished with good margin by a dual-launch SDLV program, thus costing less than the Ares V Lite. There is no need for the enhanced capabilities of the dual-launch Ares V Lite.

6.5.3 Examination of the key question on NASA heritage vs. EELV-heritage super-heavy vehicles

The Committee considers the EELV-heritage super-heavy vehicle to be a way to significantly reduce the operating cost of the heavy lifter to NASA in the long run. It would be a less-capable vehicle, but probably sufficiently capable for the mission. Reaping the long-term cost benefits would require substantial disruption in NASA, and force the agency to adopt a new way of doing business.

6.6 Comparisons Across Integrated Options

6.6.1 Cross-option comparisons

The Flexible Path program (Option 5A) scores more highly than the Baseline (Option 3) on 9 of the 12 criteria outlined in section 6.1 ( See figure 6.6.1-1). The higher rankings include:

• Exploration Preparation (due to much more capable launch system)
• Technology (due to investment in technology)
• Science (because of more places visited)
• Human Civilization (due to the ISS extension)
• Economic Expansion (because of commercial involvement in space elements and crew transport)
• Global Partnerships (gained by extending the ISS)
• Public Engagement (by visiting more new locations, and doing so each year)
• Schedule (exploring beyond low-Earth orbit sooner)
• Life-Cycle Costs (due to commercial crew services)

6.6.2 Examination of the key question on exploration strategy

Three exploration strategies were examined in Chapter 3. The choice of Mars First was found not to be viable due to technological problems. Two strategies remained:

• Moon First on the Way to Mars, with surface exploration focused on developing capability for Mars.
• Flexible Path to Mars via the inner solar system objects and locations, with no immediate plan for surface exploration, then followed by exploration of the lunar and/or Martian surface.

The Moon first is favorable to lunar science and exploration (although much can be done robotically). The Flexible Path missions explore more of the Solar System, while initially doing less on the Moon. Flexible Path has the advantage of developing infrastructure for deep space exploration, including the moons of Mars and Mars itself. The Committe notes that:

Considering that we have visited and obtained samples from the Moon, but not near-Earth objects or Mars, and also that the Flexible Path develops the ability to service space observatories, the Science Knowledge criterion slightly favors the Flexible Path. Broadly, the more complex the environment, the more astronaut explorers are favored over robotic exploration. In practice, this means that astronauts will offer their greatest value-added in the exploration of the surface of Mars.

Final Scoring

Although the Augustine Commission did not publish a final tally of the scores (for reasons they made clear), the following table does compare and tabulate the scores.

Option 5D: We will have more to say about this proposal in our final segment: “Wrapped Up” or “The Augustine Commission for Dummies”.

(Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4. Part 5. Wrap Up.)

A team of engineering students from southern India have been designing a small light-weight satellite that is set to be sent into space soon. The Indian Space Research Organisation is supporting the project in the hope that it will encourage more students to be more interested in space technology.About 40 students, mostly engineering under-graduates from seven top colleges in Bangalore and Hyderabad are working together at Nitte Meenakshi Institute of Technology in Bangalore.Under the guidance of the research organisation, the students hope to build one of the smallest satellites ever designed. It will be used for remote-sensing applications. It will orbit the earth at an altitude of 700 kilometers and will send 30 minutes of data everyday.The students have already built a master-control ground station to track the location of the satellite in space. The satellite is expected to be launched before the end of the year through the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle.Once the satellite is launched and placed in its final orbit, all its systems will be monitored by the students themselves.

SOURCES

main source

read here also

Image Courtsey CCTV

]]> http://bravikk.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/2_200-jonas-bendiksen/ Tue, 17 Nov 2009 03:44:08 +0000 R@vik Bodmer http://bravikk.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/2_200-jonas-bendiksen/ http://kendalastronomer.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/british-wormonauts-to-launch-today/ Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:17:54 +0000 philipstobbart http://kendalastronomer.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/british-wormonauts-to-launch-today/

The space shuttle Atlantis is to launch towards the International Space Station from Florida today at 7:28pm GMT, 2:28pm EDT. On board will be six astronauts, fifteen tonnes of material and a selection of worms provided by Nottingham University to study the effect of microgravity on living creatures aboard the ISS.

NASA TV will be following all live.

Satellite Re-Entry, 2009, mixed media on panel, 120″ x 126″

Laranja Shredder, 2009, mixed media on wood panel, 53″x 47 3/4″x 3 1/2″

Kansas City-based artist Andrzej Zielinski is showing new paintings and drawings of satellites at the H&R Block Artspace.  Also in the exhibit are  Jaimie Warren and Dylan Mortimer.  All three are winners of the Charlotte Street Award. He’s also opening a solo exhibit, Shredders, at DCKT Contemporary in NY.  The exhibit at H&R Block Artspace runs from November 13, 2009-March 27, 2010.  The exhibit at DCKT opens November 20, 2009 and runs until January 3, 2010.

Our Previous Post on Zielinski.

I’m sorry that I couldn’t attend this year’s NewTeeVee Live event as I had in prior years.  Cliff notes here.

NewTeeVee’s Chris Albrecht’s interview here with Comcast’s Amy Blanse regarding Comcast’s TV Everywhere, already in trial since July and ready to launch in December, provides good insights into what TV Everywhere means for Comcast. 

First off, TV Everywhere is an industry initiative (cable, satellite, and telcos) where you can access certain networks you subscribe to both through the primary distributor and through the programmers’ website.  For Comcast specifically, you can have access to your specific packages’ On Demand content online.  If you currently subscribe to HBO through Comcast, then you can have online access to the HBO On Demand library via Comcast.net or Fancast.com on your computer/laptop.  Viewing requires a player download and a  1X authentication requires a download (per device, up to 3 devices allowed).  Once your laptop is authenticated, you can take your laptop anywhere and still have the same On Demand access.

Are there concerns within Comcast of cord-cutting (cutting off the cable service for on-line only services like Hulu)?  While Comcast is not seeing that right now, they are aware of the phenomenon and are watching trends very carefully.  Ultimately, there will probably be a mix of models rather than a winner-take-all situation.  Comcast’s goal is to be a facilitator between the programmer and consumer, allowing consumers to see their content when they want and how they want (cross platforms).  You go online and search for Entourage and you are presented with a list of consumption options:  download PPV during an early release window, view it on cable at X day and time, watch it on your mobile phone, etc.  And to add what Quincy Smith of CBS Interactive outlined, the goal is to dynamically insert ads around each one of those views based on what you like and where you are (e.g. location-based ads on mobile).

Ad loads and release windows still open and will wait and see what consumers respond to.  Comcast and the industry is working with Nielsen to make sure that programmers get credit for online views. 

FYI, Comcast On Demand Online downloads count towards their 250 Mb metered broadband caps.  Over-the-top (OTT) internet to TV box converters (boxee, XboxLive) boasting of poised growth.  Can they surpass the Comcast On Demand Online?  Or  hope to get a decent share of the pie.

Note that, employer or not, I do not always agree with Comcast on many levels, but I am impressed with what I’m seeing from the Comcast Interactive Group here.  I’ve said in prior comments here  that it’s going to take the strong arms and extensive programming partnerships of a Comcast, TW, or DISH to gather enough programmers – especially subscription-based, premium networks like HBO – to participate in On Demand Online.  But to be the facilitator (uber distributor, if you will) between programmers and consumers wherever and whenever they want to watch – well, pretty Comcastic-ly-sized ambitions, don’t you think?  Not a bad ambition to have.

Credit: NASA Video

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is an infrared observatory, and a partial successor to the Hubble Space Telescope. JWST does not view visible light because light from the earliest universe has shifted toward the infrared (red shift). Infrared sensitivity is required in order to see further back in time toward the beginning of the universe than either Hubble or ground based observatories.The James Webb Space Telescope is a joint venture between NASA, the European Space Agency (ESA) and the Canadian Space Agency (CSA). In all, fifteen countries are making contributions to JWST. The are four main components to the scientific mission: Search for the first stars and galaxies that formed after the Big Bang Study galaxies and their formation and evolution Understand the formation of stars and planetary systems Study the origins of life on planetary systems

JWST is scheduled for launch in 2014 aboard an Ariane 5 rocket. It will take up residence at the Sun-Earth Lagrange point 2 (SEL-2). SEL-2 is 1,500,000 km beyond the Earth from the Sun (the Earth-Moon L2 is 61,500 km beyond the Moon). The location was chosen in order to be able to shield the telescope from the infrared radiation of the Sun and the Earth. Currently, SEL-2 is occupied by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), which was launched 30 June 2001, and the Herschel and Planck observatories, which were launched together on an Ariane 5 on 14 May 2009. The image at left is a cutaway diagram the the Ariane 5 rocket, illustrating how the JWST will fold up inside the payload fairing. With the large screen behind it, the JWST will be about 21 m in width. It will stand about three stories high. The main telescope mirror, which measures 6.5 m in diameter, is too large to launch in one piece. Instead, it consists of 17 individual mirror segments mounted on a frame which will be folded inside the fairing of the Ariane 5 at launch. Once it arrives at SEL-2, it will unfold, as this animation shows. There are four instruments designed to conduct the investigations on board the James Webb Space Telescope: Mid-Infrared Instrument, or MIRI – provided by the European Consortium with the European Space Agency (ESA), and by the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) Near-Infrared Camera, or NIRCam – provided by the University of Arizona Near-Infrared Spectrograph, or NIRSpec – provided by ESA, with components provided by NASA/GSFC. Fine Guidance Sensor, or FGS – provided by the Canadian Space Agency. The FGS contains a dedicated Guider and a Tunable Filter Camera.

Credit: European Space Agency

Credit: NASA   Credit: NASA

The image at left shows the locations of the four instruments in the Integrated Science Instrument Module (ISIM). Below, the image shows the location of the instrument package within the JWST. The Mid-Infrared Instrument (MIRI) is an imager/spectrograph that covers the wavelength range of 5 to 27 micrometers. The camera provides wide-field broadband imagery, and the spectrograph module provides medium-resolution spectroscopy over a smaller field of view compared to the imager. The nominal operating temperature for the MIRI is 7K. Additional information can be found at the MIRI website, Space Telescope Science Institute. The Near Infrared Camera (NIRCam) is an imager with a large field of view and high angular resolution. The NIRCam covers a wavelength range of 0.6 to 5 micrometers. More on NIRCam. The Near Infrared Spectrograph (NIRSpec) measures the simultaneous spectra of more than 100 objects in a 9-square-arcminute field of view. This instrument provides medium-resolution spectroscopy over a wavelength range of 1 to 5 micrometers and lower-resolution spectroscopy from 0.6 to 5 micrometers. See the Space Telescope Science Institute information on NIRSpec. The Fine Guidance Sensor (FGS) sensor is used for both “guide star” acquisition and fine pointing. See information from the Space Telescope Science Institute about NIRSpec.

Recent Events

In October, the NIRSpec Engineering Test Unit (ETU) was completed by Astrium, and will be shipped to the United States later this year for integration testing. For additional information on the ETU, see this article in Space News. Integration testing will allow work to continue while the final NIRSpec instrument is developed. Along with the NIRSpec ETU, a test model of the other European instrument, the Mid-Infrared Instrument (MIRI) will also be delivered.

See also:

The Wikipedia article on JWST.
NASA home page for JWST.
ESA home page for JWST.
CSA home page for JWST.
Make your own Paper Model of the JWST.
YouTube and JWST.

By Tracy Norris

Do you fancy being on the first commercial flight into space, powered only by laughing gas and rubber?  85,000 potential customers have already registered to be the first customers on Virgin Galactic’s White Knight, Spaceship One to do just that. 

For a mere $200,000 you too can experience a two and a half hour flight that will leave the earth’s atmosphere and allow you to experience weightlessness.  According to  Will Whitehorn, Virgin Galactic’s President, you will then “return to earth to receive the official U.S. Government astronaut wings and a nice cup of tea”!

Whitehorn delivered his lecture to an audience at Edinburgh Napier University this week on the Virgin Galactic project in which he reassured listeners that the cost of a ticket is expected to drop gradually to just $90,000 per person, making this a relatively ‘budget’ space travel option for the future.  To put this in context, the first commercial airplane flights at the turn of the 20th Century cost the equivalent of $85,000 in today’s money.

But space tourism is only one aspect of Whitehorn’s business model.  With a launch cost in the region of $1 million, versus N.A.S.A.’s shuttle cost of around $1 billion, Virgin Galactic is set to become the most affordable way to get people, satellites and equipment into space.

The White Knight, Spaceship One designed by Burt Rutan using his Scaled Composites materials, can potentially be used for scientific research, space training, technology tests and demonstrations, small satellite orbital launch as well as tourism.  A satellite launch currently costs N.A.S.A. around $50 million.  Virgin Galactic is aiming to get this cost down below $5 million.  They already have 7 space science customers signed up.  Whitehorn predicts an “industrial revolution in space”.

 The SpaceShip Two rocket that will be airborne launched from the mothership ‘Eve’  is due to be unveiled at Virgin Galactic’s Spaceport America in New Mexico on 7th December 2009, with a first flight scheduled for January 2010.    Whitehorn will be on board along with engineers, but the first commercial flight into space isn’t expected to take place for a further 14 months.

So, of the 300 passengers who have already paid a deposit of between $20 and $200k each to secure their place on board, who gets to be on the first commercial flight into space?  Richard Branson will of course be there.  If all goes according to plan, so will 91 year old Professor James Lovelock, the famous Gaia theorist and close friend and adviser to Branson.  Professor Stephen Hawking will also join them, health permitting.   According to Whitehorn, both world-renowned scientists will be the only passengers to be offered the flight free of charge, “Lovelock because he can’t afford it, and Hawking because he deserves it”.

In a profoundly optimistic and interesting set of prognostications, Spaceflight Now reports on the outlook for the space industry.  In short, most of it looks mighty fine.  Here are some of the highlights forecast for the world-wide space industry.

Regarding meteorological and terrestrial observation satellites:

• Revenues at $1B in 2009 and could quadruple in a few years
• About 260 new satellites launched in the next decade, about double the 128 launched between 1998 and 2008
• Growth to $27.4B in the next decade versus $20.4 in the last decade
• Profits derived from space-based capabilities increasing at 16% per year for the next decade
• Thirty-four nations involved in satellite observation programs by 2018 versus eight in 1997

Regarding communications satellites:

• Average revenue growth of about five percent in the next five years
• More than 30 large new satcoms being produced with a value around $7.5B
• Twenty new satellites launched in the last 18 months for terrestrial digital TV
• 2800 new satellite TV channels appeared in 2008 bringing the total to 24000
• Satellite data transmission grew 10 percent in 2008

Regarding launch:

• 10-year forecast for launch vehicles at $48B–totals 636 launch vehicles
• The split: U.S 161; Russia, Ukraine, and China 306; Europe 92; India, Japan, and Israel 73

The bad news:

• U.S. Atlas 5 and Delta 4 launch vehicles largely priced out of the commercial market

From the recent Space Exposition in South Korea, some photo concepts from Virgin Galactic’s potential micro-satellite launcher and the future Chinese Spacelab and cargo module:

…

…

Branson got a huge influx of cash from the Saudis to alter the WK2 to carry the launcher:

http://www.virgin.com/press-release/aabar-investments-and-virgin-group-agree-equity-investment-partnership-in-virgin-galactic

I wonder what kind of satellites they want Branson to launch from his ship?

And the Chinese, they say they want to put together their space-station by 2020. Just in time for ISS de-orbit maybe?

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/

___

(Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4. Part 5. Wrap Up.)

In Part 1, we looked at the pieces strewn about our living room floor. In Part 2, we examined the Goals and Destinations in Chapter 3.0. And in Part 3, the three current Human Space Flight programs were reviewed (International Space Station, the Space Shuttle and the Constellation Program).

Chapter 5.0 Launch to Low-Earth Orbit and Beyond

In this section, The Augustine Commission examines launch vehicles. We begin with the opening statement, with which we agree:

Launch to low-Earth orbit is the most energy-intensive and dynamic step in human space exploration. No other single propulsive maneuver, including descent to and ascent from the surfaces of the Moon or Mars, demands higher thrust or more energy or has the high aerodynamic pressure forces than a launch from Earth. Launch is a critical area for spaceflight, and two of the five key questions that guide the future plans for U.S. human spaceflight focus on launch to low-Earth orbit: the delivery of heavy masses to low-Earth orbit and beyond; and the delivery of crew to low-Earth orbit.

5.1 Evaluation methodologies for Launch Vehicles

The Commission used “cost, performance and schedule parameters, as well as safety, operability, maturity, human rating, workforce implications, development of commercial space, the consequences to national security space, and the impact on exploration and science missions”. They note that some of these are quantitative and some are qualitative measures. Evaluations of the claim for each launcher was made and adjusted, and the uncertainty was assessed. Historical bounds were employed where appropriate. Some 70 lower-level metrics were used to construct 13 top level metrics.

5.2 Heavy Lift to Low-Earth Orbit and Beyond

The Commission began by reiterating the Constellation plan to loft about 600 metric tons (mt) per year to low Earth orbit (LEO). By comparison, NASA launched 250 mt per year during Apollo and the International Space Station (ISS) has a mass of about 350 mt.

Figure 5.2-1 listed the five candidates and their lift to LEO (see Launch Vehicles for visuals) and Figure 5.2.1-1 gave Trans Lunar Injection (TLI) with no refueling and with in-space refueling:

Launch Vehicle	LEO	TLI no refueling	TLI in-space refueling
EELV Super Heavy	75 mt	26 mt	55 mt
Directly Shuttle Derived	100-110 mt	35 mt	75 mt
Ares V Lite	140 mt	55 mt	120 mt
Ares V	160 mt	63 mt	130 mt
Ares V plus Ares I	185 mt	71 mt	150 mt

Notice that the Commission has brought the potential of in-space refueling front and center, either as propellant transfer from one spacecraft to another (as in a dual launch Ares V Lite or Jupiter 246), or from a true propellant depot, which would be supplied by commercial contract. However, “the Committee found both of these concepts feasible with current technology, but in need of significant further engineering development and in-space demonstration before they could be included in a baseline design”. Thus, the initial set of evaluations would need to examine the mass that an Earth Departure Stage (EDS) could push through TLI without refueling.

A detailed study of launch reliability of multi-launch missions commissioned by the Committee concluded that at most three critical launches be used. Reasonable chances for success required 90+ days of on-orbit life for an EDS or propellant depots.

Subsequent to Shuttle retirement, the need for NASA to launch 400 to 600 mt to LEO each year would consume much if not all of the existing and planned excess EELV capacity. Further, it would be expensive.

Finally, the Commission notes that heavy lift vehicles “would allow large scientific observatories to be launched, potentially enabling them to have optics larger than the current five-meter fairing sizes will allow. More capable deep-space science missions could be mounted, allowing faster or more extensive exploration of the outer solar system”.

All the foregoing was seen as justification for the development of Heavy Lift vehicles. The Commission then reviewed the choices in the chart above.

Ares V: This is the most capable of the proposed rockets. Together with the Ares I, it can launch 185 mt to LEO, 71 mt through TLI and land 14 tons of cargo only on the lunar surface, or 2 mt of cargo plus crew. Ares V requires expansion of the External Tank (ET) to 10 meters, the development of new 5.5 segment solid rocket motors (SRM), development of a regenerative version of the RS-68 engine and the development of the J2-X second stage engine (modified from the Saturn J2 engine).

Ares V Lite: Ares V Lite is a derivative of the Ares V, but with an LEO payload of 140 mt. This rocket would require the completion of the 5 segment SRM under development for Ares I. The remaining new Ares V components would still require development. For lunar missions, the Ares V Lite would be human-rated and used in the “dual mode”. In single launch it can place 14 mt of cargo on the lunar surface, and with a larger Lander than Ares V, it can land 5 mt of cargo plus crew.

SDLV Side-Mount: The side-mount and the in-line SDLV both use the existing Space Shuttle ET, the 4 segment SRM and the Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME). The side-mount replaces the Shuttle with a cargo pod. The Committee combined the side-mount with the in-line variants for purposes of evaluation. They did note, however, that “the side-mount variant is considered an inherently less safe arrangement if crew are to be carried, and is more limited in its growth potential”.

SDLV In-Line The in-line variants are represented by the Jupiter family of rockets, as proposed by the Direct team. The Committee assumed that three Jupiter 241 vehicles would be used for a lunar mission, and that 5 mt of cargo could be landed with crew. No figure was given for a cargo only dual-launch mission, but the report states that more than 20 mt of cargo can be landed by a single Jupiter 241 using in-space refueling. Now, the three launch scenario is peculiar. Perhaps the Commission was trying to replicate the LEO loft mass of a dual Ares V Lite mission (2 x 140 mt). However, that much fuel, lander and crew far exceeds the Constellation Program (CxP) requirements. Furthermore, Ross Tierney, from Direct, has stated that “the right 2-launch Jupiter architecture is actually capable of landing 19mT of useful payload mass on the lunar surface every crew mission…Given that the Ascent Module only consists of about 6.4mT of that, this architecture is actually capable of landing almost the same 14.5mT* cargo modules as CxP are currently planning to land using cargo-only missions”. So we are left with unanswered questions concerning the assumptions and evaluations made by the Commission, not only about SDLV, but the Ares mission architectures.

EELV Super Heavy The Extended Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) is represented by the Atlas 5 Phase 2 Heavy, which consists of the core rocket plus two boosters of the same basic design along with an upgraded common upper stage (to be used by both Atlas and Delta). The common upper stage would use four RL-10 rocket engines, which have a long history of successful flights aboard Titan, Delta and Atlas among others. This configuration is capable of lofting a maximum of 75 mt to LEO. A dual launch configuration with in-space refueling is capable of conducting Flexible Path missions.

Summary of Findings

• Heavy Lift capability is beneficial to human exploration as well as national security and the scientific community.
• In-Space refueling represents a significant benefit to space transportation systems beyond low Earth orbit. It requires development and would not be on the critical path. A prudent approach is to develop Heavy Lift capable of early missions and phase in in-space refueling when it becomes available.
• A new emphasis of sustainable operations is needed. “NASA’s design culture emphasizes maximizing performance at minimum development cost, repeatedly resulting in high operational and lifecycle costs. A shift in NASA design culture toward design for minimum discounted life-cycle cost, accompanied by robustness and adequate margins, will allow NASA programs to be more sustainable”.
• In-Space Propulsion for missions beyond LEO that last for weeks or months require stages using efficient engines with high-reliability restart capabilities.

The Lunar Surface Capabilities of the various systems are compared in the following table:

Launch Vehicle	LEO	Cargo Only	Cargo and Crew
EELV Super Heavy	75 mt	NA mt	NA mt
Directly Shuttle Derived	100-110 mt	14 mt*	5 mt*
Ares V Lite	140 mt	14 mt	5 mt
Ares V plus Ares I	185 mt	14 mt	2 mt

5.3 Crew Launch to Low-Earth Orbit

Crew safety is an overriding issue in human space flight. The safe delivery of crew to LEO and their return is critical. This is the fourth key question (see Part 1) that the Committee examined. The assumed that Orion would be the crew vehicle, and that the launch vehicle would either be government provided and operated, or a commercial service.

Ares I was selected in 2005 as part of the ESAS study, and was expected to be operational in 2012. The Constellation program now projects initial operational capability (IOC) in 2015, and the Committee thinks this will slip further. Both budgetary and design problems have been encountered.

International Transportation was deemed acceptable by the Committee. However, sustained U. S. leadership in space requires domestic crew launch capability.

A human rated EELV was considered by the Commission. An independent study found that the launch of Orion on the Delta IV Heavy was technically feasible, but the long term development and carrying costs offset any savings versus Ares I.

Commercial Transport of crew to LEO is a hot topic. The Committee asked “can a simple capsule with a launch escape system, operating on a high-reliability liquid booster, be made safer than the Shuttle, and comparably as safe as Ares I plus Orion”? A number of factors were considered:

• A strong role for NASA oversight of the development would be required.
• The cost to NASA of underwriting design, development, test, and evaluation (DDT&E).
• The potential non-NASA uses of LEO crew transport

The Committee made several estimates of total costs, and arrived at a preliminary estimate of $5 Billion dollars. Assuming a “less-constrained” NASA budget, a commercial LEO crew transport service could be available by 2016.

Finally, the Committee assessed the risks to the human space flight program associated with commercial crew transport. Such development could distract from the near-term goal of developing commercial cargo capability. The commercial community might fail to deliver a crew transportation system. The fall-back position for NASA would be human rating the Heavy Lift Vehicle. The Committee assumes that the first stage of the HLV will be developed as quickly as possible. We leave the implications of this statement as an exercise for the reader.

5.4 Additional Issues in Launcher Selection

Launch Vehicle Performance and Costing The factors in this section include:

• Evaluation of the claimed cost, schedule and performance of the various launch vehicles.
• The advantage of shifting to commercial purchase of space transportation systems.
• The loss of the workforce and expertise built up within NASA from shifting to commercial sources.
• The health and viability of the solid rocket motor industry from all-liquid fuel launch vehicles.

Launcher Reliability The Committee reviewed the historical reliability of the Shuttle, Saturn, Titan, Delta and Atlas programs. Launchers derived from existing systems have shown greater reliability in early stages of development than newly developed systems.

(Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4. Part 5. Wrap Up.)

AUSTRALIAN and Chinese scientists have teamed up to crank up the use of satellites for monitoring natural disasters including floods and bushfires…. From The Australian. Full story

This site may contain information about: china store. The blog is also related to: the china problem.

The singer/song writer Zac Seif is the front-man for the new Texas based Satellites.  I’m not ashamed to admit that I keep singing their mellow/catchy tunes.  They have now made their CD free to the world.  What a nice early Christmas present.   

Get Satellites first CD for free!

I remember this song by Monica from her The Boy Is Mine album back in the day.  Although it wasn’t my favourite song from the album, I could resonate a lot with the idea of having a crush on somebody but not ever being able to bring yourself to admit it.  I’ve been in that situation a lot in my life, and guess what! I’m there again.

I’m not going to name any names on here, just in case the wrong person sees it (it’s unlikely, but I don’t want to take any chances).  After B, R, and any other initial you can care to name, I thought that I might have given up falling (or learned NOT to fall) for inappropriate people. When I say inappropriate, they’re either mentally or emotionally unstable, or unavailable for whatever reason – I think that that umbrella covers more or less all the experiences I’ve had in the past couple of years.  Oh, unless they were idiots.  And then I start to wonder, is it me?  Do I unconsciously seek out people with whom it just won’t work?  Is this an act of self-sabotage? Am I some sort of masochist?

Maybe, maybe not.  I mean, the latest thing I’m going through is different.  I’ve formed such a close bond with this person, it’s crazy, and I admire him and look up to him so much.  I wish that I could be like him one day (except he can’t spell “tommorrow” or “definately”. But apart from that.), the way he is with people.  He’s so strong and has a wicked sense of humour, and yet he’s so observant and sincere underneath. Plus, he may be older, but he’s pretty hot. Okay, enough gushing.  So I thought this crush was gonna be a phase, but apparently not – I can’t stop dreaming about him, I can’t stop thinking about him, the only time I feel normal anymore is when we are texting or when we are together.  It’s really bad, and it stomps all over the other people I’ve dated / not dated / been interested in the last couple of years.  It revolutionises everything for me, and reminds me of the once or twice I felt like I was approaching feeling in love when I was a teenager.  And yet, obviously I can’t tell him – not only is he very not single, but I can’t ruin the strong friendship we’ve established.  I’m not willing to do that, and so I keep it to myself.

Occasionally it hurts, but more than anything, our bond and our camaraderie keep me going.  We’ve gotten to a level of flirtation that is a bit weird (considering he is straight and attached) but it’s a lot of fun and I enjoy it, it makes me feel good.  I guess that I feel safe around him – not that I feel vulnerable walking around every day, but I feel that when we’re together, we’re popular and the leaders of our group and sorta untouchable.  I know people’s eyes are on us, and I also know that people think we are inseparable. That’s okay.  I don’t think people (apart from the couple whom I’ve told) know I have a crush on him – we are just real good friends, and as much as I look for him whenever he’s around, I know he does the same for me too.  It’s a 50/50 relationship, and it would be ideal!  Except it can never be.  That’s the only sting in the tail, but although sometimes I do feel a little bit down about it, I wouldn’t trade our friendship and the bond we’ve established in so short a time for the world.  I’m really lucky.

But again, because I don’t wanna risk anything going wrong, I’m not going to say anything.  I come home and feel empty, and my parents have their own problems and their own business.  We sorta exist around each other and orbit each other, with no real problems, but they have no desire to interact with me unless I have done something to inconvenience them, so I keep myself to myself at home.  And it does feel lonely.  My friends are supportive, and I really appreciate that so much, but there’s only so much that they can do – I’m looking to move out somehow and just get a bit more independence.  Free myself from that situation, because although I would end up being on my own, I would somehow feel less lonely because I would be less caged.  I think that even though I might be on my own, that would be my choice and the empowerment I’d get from that would make up for it.  Plus, I tend to get on better with my parents (and they seem to appreciate me more) from a distance.  But until that time comes, I keep my frustration with this whole situation to myself also.  I told Mike that it would be tempting to just move out, change my number and not tell my family where I was going – but it would just result in worrying them too much and they’d probably turn up at university or something looking for me.  I want to minimise the drama – that’s the whole point of having this plan – but until I can put it in motion, secrecy is the way forward.  Perhaps that’s a bit fucked up, but I haven’t got any time for people who can’t keep their mouths shut when it’s the appropriate thing to do.  So I try to have a sense of decorum about love and about life, and keep the right things to myself.

Nigeria’s space agency is no joke.

It has launched satellites and aims to put Africans into space.

Source:
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/nigeria/091029/nigeria-space-agency