Japanese astronaut Soichi Noguchi just launched from Baikonur Space Center, and is looking forward to being the first person to roll sushi in microgravity. Actual quote:

Noguchi is bringing the raw materials to the International Space Station, where he plans to prepare and serve "a couple of flavors of sushi." What varieties, how it will be prepared, and how the raw fish is stored for its sojourn in space has not been made public.

We'll keep you updated on this breaking news as it develops. Probably. [Pop Sci via TWBE]

Using data from Voyager, we have discovered a strong magnetic field just outside the solar system. This magnetic field holds the interstellar cloud together—"The Fluff"—and solves the long-standing puzzle of how it can exist at all.

The Fluff is much more strongly magnetized than anyone had previously suspected. This magnetic field can provide the extra pressure required to resist destruction.

The Voyagers are not actually inside the Local Fluff. But they are getting close and can sense what the cloud is like as they approach it.

At least, that's what NASA's Heliophysics Guest Investigator from George Mason University Merav Opher says in the December 24 issue of Nature. I lean to the intergalactic plot to keep our primitive world from entering the Federation of Advanced Civilizations. That, or Ming of Mongo trying to crush our puny asses.

It's ironic how the whole thing works. Earth's magnetic field and atmosphere protects us from the Sun's magnetic field and radiation. Then, the Fluff is not destroying us thanks to the Sun's magnetic field and the solar winds, which is what form the 6.2-billion-mile-wide heliosphere. So my question is: Who protects the Fluff?

I will leave you with that. Go think, my little Earthlings, go. [NASA]

In space, nobody can see you dancing classical ballet while eating Christmas pudding dunked in eggnog while singing Xmas carols. And with nobody I really mean the Cassini spacecraft.

Among other activities, they organized the final mission patch contest to make NASA employees more involved and concentrate on the missions ahead. The entries—a total of 85—were created by all shuttle program members, from technicians to astronauts. Fifteen of these will go into a voting web page, where NASA employees would be able to vote. The favorite—although this could be vetoed by NASA's top brass—will be the final mission patch. My bet is hidden in the gallery, but looking at it, it's clearly perfect NASA patch material. [Collect Space]

As they're actually flexible, they'll be perfect for covering satellites and other space-bound objects, and are even able to be folded around tight corners. Measuring 20 microns in thickness, Sharp's prototype was created by combining indium gallium crystals, gallium arsenide and indium gallium arsenide, growing them on solid substrate molecules before adding them to film. Sharp's hoping to manufacture them before 2012, for space shuttles and the like to generate energy from way up above us. [Nikkei via CrunchGear]

It's not the first time they've worked together, with the Nikon Photomic FTN actually used on Apollo 15 back in 1971, but it's nice to see that NASA's taste in camera models has got more expensive over the years.

The D3s, unveiled back in August, normally costs $5,199.95, and features a whoppingly large ISO range of 200 - 12,800 (though it can be expanded up to 102,400). NASA will be using the cameras to photograph the happenings at the International Space Station, and apparently are so happy with the D3s and NIKKOR lenses (which cost $1,830 each) that there's no need to modify them to make them more space-friendly.

Over 700,000 photos have been taken by NASA using Nikon cameras to date, though with a total cost of over $70,000 for this latest order, they better be taking a lot more snaps to get their money's worth. [Nikon via Akihabara News]

This one image communicates so much about Titan - thick atmosphere, surface lakes and an otherworldliness. It's an unsettling combination of strangeness yet similarity to Earth.

The image of the lake was captured by the Cassini spacecraft on July 8. The probe was looking for this image since it arrived to Saturn in 2004. Previously, Cassini detected liquid methane lakes using infrared data, but this picture shows the 400,000-square-kilometer Kraken Mare lake in a way that has never seen before. So beautiful. [Wired Science]

I had a discussion recently with friends about the various depictions of space combat in science fiction movies, TV shows, and books. We have the fighter-plane engagements of Star Wars, the subdued, two-dimensional naval combat in Star Trek, the Newtonian planes of Battlestar Galactica, the staggeringly furious energy exchanges of the combat wasps in Peter Hamilton's books, and the use of antimatter rocket engines themselves as weapons in other sci-fi. But suppose we get out there, go terraform Mars, and the Martian colonists actually revolt. Or suppose we encounter hostile aliens. How would space combat actually go?

First, let me point out something that Ender's Game got right and something it got wrong. What it got right is the essentially three-dimensional nature of space combat, and how that would be fundamentally different from land, sea, and air combat. In principle, yes, your enemy could come at you from any direction at all. In practice, though, the Buggers are going to do no such thing. At least, not until someone invents an FTL drive, and we can actually pop our battle fleets into existence anywhere near our enemies. The marauding space fleets are going to be governed by orbit dynamics – not just of their own ships in orbit around planets and suns, but those planets' orbits. For the same reason that we have Space Shuttle launch delays, we'll be able to tell exactly what trajectories our enemies could take between planets: the launch window. At any given point in time, there are only so many routes from here to Mars that will leave our imperialist forces enough fuel and energy to put down the colonists' revolt. So, it would actually make sense to build space defense platforms in certain orbits, to point high-power radar-reflection surveillance satellites at certain empty reaches of space, or even to mine parts of the void. It also means that strategy is not as hopeless when we finally get to the Bugger homeworld: the enemy ships will be concentrated into certain orbits, leaving some avenues of attack guarded and some open. (Of course, once our ships maneuver towards those unguarded orbits, they will be easily observed – and potentially countered.)

Now, Let's Talk Technology

First, pending a major development in propulsion technology, combat spacecraft would likely get around the same way the Apollo spacecraft went to the Moon and back: with orbit changes effected by discrete main-engine burns. The only other major option is a propulsion system like ion engines or solar sails, which produce a very low amount of thrust over a very long time. However, the greater speed from burning a chemical, nuclear, or antimatter rocket in a single maneuver is likely a better tactical option. One implication of rocket propulsion is that there will be relatively long periods during which Newtonian physics govern the motions of dogfighting spacecraft, punctuated by relatively short periods of maneuvering. Another is that combat in orbit would be very different from combat in "deep space," which is what you probably think of as how space combat should be – where a spacecraft thrusts one way, and then keeps going that way forever. No, around a planet, the tactical advantage in a battle would be determined by orbit dynamics: which ship is in a lower (and faster) orbit than which; who has a circular orbit and who has gone for an ellipse; relative rendezvous trajectories that look like winding spirals rather than straight lines.

Second, there are only a few ways to maneuver the attitude of a spacecraft around – to point it in a new direction. The fast ways to do that are to fire an off-center thruster or to tilt a gyroscope around to generate a torque. Attitude maneuvers would be critical to point the main engine of a space fighter to set up for a burn, or to point the weapons systems at an enemy. Either way, concealing the attitude maneuvers of the space fighter would be important to gain a tactical advantage. So I think gyroscopes ("CMGs," in the spacecraft lingo) would be a better way to go – they could invisibly live entirely within the space fighter hull, and wouldn't need to be mounted on any long booms (which would increase the radar, visible, and physical cross-section of the fighter) to get the most torque on the craft. With some big CMGs, a spacecraft could flip end-for-end in a matter of seconds or less. If you come upon a starfighter with some big, spherical bulbs near the midsection, they are probably whopping big CMGs and the thing will be able to point its guns at you wherever you go. To mitigate some of the directionality of things like weapons fire and thruster burns, space fighters would probably have weapons and engines mounted at various points around their hull; but a culture interested in efficiently mass-producing space warships would probably be concerned about manufacturing so many precision parts for a relatively fragile vessel, and the craft would likely only have one main engine rather than, say, four equal tetrahedral engines.

How About Weapons?

We have to consider just how you might damage a spacecraft to put it out of action.

Explosions are basically a waste of energy in space. On the ground, these are devastating because of the shock wave that goes along with them. But in the vacuum of space, an explosion just creates some tenuous, expanding gases that would be easily dissipated by a hull. No, to damage spacecraft systems, you can't hit them with gas unless it's really, really concentrated and energetic. So unless you want to just wait till your enemy is close enough that you can point your engines at him, the best bets for ranged weapons are kinetic impactors and radiation.

A kinetic impactor is basically just a slug that goes really fast and hits the enemy fighter, tearing through the hull, damaging delicate systems with vibrations, throwing gyroscopes out of alignment so that they spin into their enclosures and explode into shards, puncturing tanks of fuel and other consumables, or directly killing the pilot and crew. You know…bullets. But it sounds much more technical and science-fictiony to say "mass driver" or "kinetic lance" or something of the sort. Of course, the simplest way to implement this sort of weapon in space is just as some kind of machine gun or cannon. Those will work in space (ask the Soviets, they tested a cannon on their first Salyut space station), and the shells will do plenty of damage if they hit anything. However, space is filled mostly with empty space, and hitting the enemy ships might be a challenge. Furthermore, if the impactors are too large, the enemy could counter them by firing their own point-defense slugs and knocking the shells out of line. Therefore, I contend that the most effective kinetic space weapons would be either flak shells or actively thrusting, guided missiles. The flak shells would explode into a hail of fragmented shards, able to tear through un-armored systems of many craft at once without the shell directly hitting its target, or able to strike a target even after it tries to evade with a last-minute engine burn. The missiles would be a bit different from the missiles we are used to on Earth, which must continuously thrust to sustain flight. In space, such a weapon would rapidly exhaust its fuel and simply become a dummy shell. No, a space missile would either be fired as an unguided projectile and power up its engine after drifting most of the way to its target, or it would fire its engine in sporadic, short bursts. A definite downside to kinetic weapons on a starfighter is that they would impart momentum to the fighter or change its mass properties. Very large cannons or missiles might therefore be impractical, unless the fighter can quickly compensate for what is essentially a large rocket firing. Even that compensation might give the enemy just the window he needs…

Radiation-based weapons that burn out the electronics of a spacecraft sound exotic, but are still potentially achievable. This would be the attraction of nuclear weapons in space: not the explosion, which would affect just about nothing, but the burst of energetic particles and the ensuing electromagnetic storm. Still, such a burst would have to be either pretty close to the target vessel to scramble its systems, or it would have to be made directional in some way, to focus the gamma-ray and zinging-proton blast. But while we're talking about focused energy weapons, lets just go with a tool that we already use to cut sheet metal on Earth: lasers. In space, laser light will travel almost forever without dissipating from diffraction. Given a large enough power supply, lasers could be used at range to slice up enemy warships. The key phrase there, though, is "given a large enough power supply." Power is hard to come by in the space business. So, expect space laser weapons to take one of three forms: small lasers designed not to destroy, but to blind and confuse enemy sensors; medium-sized lasers that would be fired infrequently and aimed to melt specific vulnerable points on enemy space fighters, like antennae, gimbals, and maneuvering thrusters; and large lasers pumped by the discharge from a large capacitor or similar energy storage device to cut a physical slice into the enemy craft wherever they hit. Such a large weapon would likely only be fired at the very beginning of a battle, because the commander of a ship with such a weapon would not want to keep his capacitor charged when it might unexpectedly blow its energy all at once once he's in the thick of things.

Deflector shields like those in fiction are not possible at present, but it would still make sense to armor combat spacecraft to a limited extent. The spaceframes of the fighters would likely be designed solely for the space environment; the actual ships would be launched within the payload fairings of a rocket or assembled in space. If launched from the ground, armor must be minimized to reduce the launch weight of the spacecraft. But if built and launched in space, it would make sense to plate over vital systems of the vehicle. Thick armor would prevent flak or small lasers from piercing delicate components, and might mitigate a direct strike from a kinetic impactor or heavy cutting laser. However, the more heavily armored and massive a space fighter is, the more thrust it will take to maneuver in orbit and the more energy it will take to spin in place. (Here's where computer games get space combat all wrong: the mass of a huge space cruiser would not place an upper limit on the speed of a vehicle, but it would reduce the acceleration a given engine could produce compared to the same engine on a less massive vehicle.)

I'm assuming that we'd have some intrepid members of the United Earth Space Force crewing these combat vessels. Or, at least, crewing some of them – robotic drone fighters would be a tremendous boon to space soldiers, but the communication lag between planets and vessels in orbit would make the split-second judgments of humans necessary at times. (Until we perfect AIs… but if we're giving them the space fighters from the beginning, we deserve the robot uprising we'll get.) The crews will hardly be sitting around nice conference-room command bridges with no seat belts; nor will they be standing upright in slate-gray console pits with glowing glass displays all over. It's not even a good idea for them to have windows, which would be vulnerable to flak and could give the crew an intense sense of disorientation as the spacecraft maneuvers, and could give them tremendous trouble adapting to rapid changes in light levels as the ship rotates near a planet or star. No, they should be strapped into secure couches and centrally located in the most protected part of the spacecraft. They should also be in full pressure suits, and the interior cabin of the spacecraft should already be evacuated – to prevent fires, or any secondary damage if all the atmosphere rushes out a hull breach. This also reduces the need for escape pods. Camera views from the exterior of the ship and graphical representations of the tactical situation would then be projected directly onto helmet faceplates.

Now, for the final word, let's say the United Earth Space Force defeats the Martian rebels in orbit. What do we do to hit them on the ground? Well, strategic weapons from space are easy: kinetic impactors again. You chuck big ol' spears, aerodynamically shaped so they stay on target and don't burn up in the atmosphere, onto ground targets and watch gravitational potential energy turn into kinetic energy and excavate you a brand-new crater. At some point, though, the imperialist Earthlings probably want to take over the existing infrastructure on Mars. Time to get out the Space Marines!

It's not terribly expensive or difficult, comparatively speaking, to get people from orbit down to a planet surface. You fall. This is the purpose of a space capsule. What's really, really, prohibitively difficult is getting them back up again. So, the victorious orbital forces would have to bring in a transport ship chock full of Space Marines and drop them all at once in little capsules (little because they can only be so big for the atmosphere to effectively brake them, and because you don't want all your Marines perishing in some unfortunate incident). Some orbital forces would remain in place to threaten the ground with bombardment and give the Marines a bit more muscle, but really, the ground-pounders are going to have to be pretty self-sufficient. If they ever want to come back up, they would have to build and/or fuel their own ascent vehicle. (This is the problem facing any NASA Mars efforts, too: getting back up through the Martian atmosphere is much harder than any of the lunar ascents were.)

What Would Combat Spacecraft End Up Looking Like?

There are good arguments to have both large and small spacecraft in the Earth forces. A big spacecraft could have a lot more armor to keep its systems and crew safe, more room for large fuel tanks and electrical power supplies, and larger mass to resist impulses from cannon recoil. However, a smaller craft would be less visible to radar, more maneuverable, and could achieve higher accelerations for constant engine thrust. As with just about any military force, the role of the craft would be tailored to the tactical operations required, so the Space Force would probably include several sizes of craft.

Enemies could come at your ship from any direction in space, which means that you would want to react, strike, and counterattack in any direction. So, you would either have to mount weaponry all around your starfighter, put the weapons on gimbals so that they could rapidly point in any direction, or make the fighter maneuverable enough that it could rapidly point in any direction. Gimbals would be a bad option, because they would introduce points of increased vulnerability, unless they could be very well-armored. I conclude that the big ships would have many weapons, pointed in many directions; the small ships would have a few weapons, with the main weapon systems pointed in one direction.

Maneuverability (angular acceleration) you could achieve with gyroscopes, or by mounting engines or thrusters away from your fighter's center of mass. For the highest levels of maneuverability, the spacecraft should be close to spherical and these engines should be as off-center as possible, which might mean putting thrusters on long booms or struts. The problem with this kind of Firefly-like engine layout is that it becomes very vulnerable. If a fighter can achieve high maneuverability with gyros, those are probably the best option.

So, I think the small fighter craft would be nearly spherical, with a single main engine and a few guns or missiles facing generally forward. They would have gyroscopes and fuel tanks in their shielded centers. It would make sense to build their outer hulls in a faceted manner, to reduce their radar cross-section. Basically, picture a bigger, armored version of the lunar module. The larger warships would also probably be nearly spherical, with a small cluster of main engines facing generally backward and a few smaller engines facing forward or sideways for maneuvering. Cannons, lasers, and missile ports would face outward in many directions. On a large enough space cruiser, it would even be a good idea to put docking ports for the small fighters, so that the fighters don't have to carry as many consumables on board.

I think it's time to sketch some pictures and write some stories!

Space-Wide Peace

I certainly hope we don't get into any space wars. Human nature being what it is, though, and given how scarce a lot of resources really are on the scale of a solar system or a galaxy, I don't think it's out of the question. I would like to think that when we start colonizing other worlds, we will be sufficiently enlightened to do so from on board the Ship of the Imagination, and not as futuristic conquistadores. Still, the part of me that loves science fiction has fun with these thought experiments.

Reprinted with permission from Joseph Shoer. Photo by TG Daily

In the words of experts who understand more about this stuff than "OMG so pretty!":

The massive, young stellar grouping, called R136, is only a few million years old and resides in the 30 Doradus Nebula, a turbulent star-birth region in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC), a satellite galaxy of our Milky Way. There is no known star-forming region in our galaxy as large or as prolific as 30 Doradus. Many of the diamond-like icy blue stars are among the most massive stars known. Several of them are over 100 times more massive than our Sun. These hefty stars are destined to pop off, like a string of firecrackers, as supernovas in a few million years.

This shot (full, massive size can be found here) were taken between October 20th and 27th of this year by Hubble's Wide Field Camera 3. The blue lights are from the hottest, biggest stars, while the green is oxygen and the red is hydrogen. Whoa, you guys. Whoa. Check out this thread on Reddit for some desktop-wallpaper-scaled versions of the shot. [HubbleSite]

I think I now want a ticket aboard Enterprise even more than I did before.

They're performing just one song, rumored to be either Gold, True or I'll Fly For You (surprising news to anyone who thought they had just two songs) if Spandau Ballet guitarist/saxophonist Steve Norman is to be believed. With only six passengers and two pilots allowed on that first Enterprise flight, the five Spandau Balleters will make up almost half the human weight. Although judging by the looks of Tony Hadley these days, maybe it'd be more like 50/50. [The List]

The WISE will be in orbit for the next nine months, snapping a photo every 11 seconds to map the entire universe in infrared. Eventually it'll cover the entire sky 1.5 times over.

It'll be looking for any objects that have a potential of hitting Earth as well as distant objects such as brown dwarfs and far-away galaxies shrouded in dust. Also, alien spacecraft. I mean, duh. [CNN, image via]

In October NASA said they would need $3 billion more per year to go forward with meaningful human space exploration, i.e. not just sending more robots up. For a while there were rumors going around that Washington was going to severely scale back the program's budget, but now according to Washington insider John Logsdon, "there will be more money."

He's also saying that Obama doesn't want to be that president who cuts a future oriented program. So he'll keep it alive, but he'll only give them a budget somewhere between their current spending and the $3 billion per year increase NASA is looking for. But all that means is that NASA will have to buddy up with international space programs a little more.

Let's face it, we weren't going to get to Mars on our own anyway. As long as NASA is still alive, and there's still a remote chance of me seeing a mission to Mars in my lifetime, I'm a happy camper. [New Scientist, image via Matthew Simantov]

That's how big this thing is: Its diameter is wider than two Earths. Nobody really knows what causes the hexagon, and why it has this precise geometric shape, something which is extremely rare—if not impossible—to find in atmospheric formations.

The Saturn hexagon left everyone speechless when Voyager sent the first images of the phenomenon, and still baffles scientists all over the world, like Kunio Sayanagi, a Cassini imaging team associate at CalTech:

The longevity of the hexagon makes this something special, given that weather on Earth lasts on the order of weeks. It's a mystery on par with the strange weather conditions that give rise to the long-lived Great Red Spot of Jupiter.

The always-amazing Cassini spacecraft just captured these images, which are the most detailed ever received portraying this strange cloud formation. [NASA]

Stuck in a soft patch of sand since April, its whole right side sounds damaged, thanks to the front-right wheel which hasn't worked since 2006, and now the back-right wheel that has seized up trying to get out of the sand.

Solar-powered, the Spirit Rover normally rests up each winter with its solar back angled towards any available sunlight, with enough power soaking in to keep its inside-bits from freezing. But if it can't move out of the sand pit it's stuck in, the Spirit Rover won't be able to soak up those vital rays of light.

NASA, if we all collected enough tinned soup and woolly jumpers to send to Mars, would that help? [New Scientist]

This is Chromoscope, showing our sky in the Far Infrared spectrum. The web application will allow you to smoothly go across the entire spectrum, from gamma rays to radio, going through X-ray, H-alpha, visible, and microwaves. [Chromoscope]

Click to zoom in.

Just try to count all of those. And then multiply that number by 100 billion, the estimate of all the stars in our own galaxy. Then imagine all the worlds surrounding all those stars. And then play this video:

The image was taken in the same region as the most amazing photo Hubble Ultra Deep Field, which was taken in 2004 and is the deepest visible-light image of the universe.

Here's where the area is located:

The photo was taken in August 2009—with a total exposure of 173,000 seconds—by the new Wide Field Camera 3, which was installed by astronauts during the most dangerous shuttle mission ever. The WFC3 captures light from near-infrared wavelength which allows to see further into the Universe, as the light traveling from the most distant galaxies gets stretched "out of the ultraviolet and visible regions of the spectrum into near-infrared wavelengths by the expansion of the universe."

I would tell you what is expanding now, NASA. You and I alone. In the chat room. Now. [NASA]