Comprehensive coverage

Five essential missions in space

Planetary scientists formulated the most important goals in the study of the solar system: monitoring the climate, protecting against asteroids, searching for new life, explaining the formation of the planets and finding ways to escape from the solar system

By George Messer

A child living in the space age may feel a vague horror when he reads today books written about the solar system before 1957. How little humans knew then. They had no idea about the volcanoes and the vast canyons of Mars, compared to which Everest looks like a broken hill, and the Grand Canyon of the United States looks like a ditch on the side of the road. They guessed that beneath the cloud cover of the planet Venus lay a lush and misty forest, or perhaps a barren and arid desert, or an ocean of carbonated water, or a huge tar pit—almost everything, perhaps, except what was really there: a vast volcanic wasteland, a picture Noah's flood in the molten rock. The pictures of Saturn were just plain sad: just two fuzzy rings, instead of the hundreds of thousands of thin rings we see today. The giant planet's moons looked like dimples, instead of the scarred expanses dotted with methane lakes and hazy geysers we've since discovered.

All in all, the planets then looked like cute little places, little more than specks of light. The Earth appears much larger than it is perceived today. No one yet saw our Earth as a planet: a blue marble on black velvet, covered in a fragile mantle of water and air. No one knew that the moon was born as a result of a collision with a body that emerged from space or that the dinosaurs died as a result of a similar event. No one really realized that humanity was becoming a real geological force capable of changing the environment on a global scale. More than anything else, the space age enriched our view of the natural world and gave us a perspective that now seems self-evident.

Since the launch of Sputnik, planetary research has gone through several ups and downs. The 80s, for example, are definitely similar to the dark side of the moon. The present looks brighter: dozens of spacecraft of the world's space agencies are scattered throughout the solar system, from Mercury to Pluto. But budget cuts, deviations from it and lack of consistency in purpose have cast long shadows on the American space agency, NASA. The agency is certainly now in the most turbulent phase of transition since President Nixon ended the Apollo missions to the moon 35 years ago.

"NASA continues to struggle with its own identity," says Anthony Gentos of the US Pacific Northwest Laboratory, a member of the US Research Council (NRC) team that scrutinized NASA's Earth observation program. "What is NASA supposed to do?" Is it in space exploration? Is it in human exploration expeditions, in science, in the study of the outer universe, in the study of the solar system, in the space shuttle and the space station, or perhaps in understanding our planet?"

Basically, these open-ended questions should be a happy occasion. Not only are spaceships flying back and forth, the human space program is also no longer lost in space like an empty rocket engine. In 2004, US President George W. Bush set a clear and attractive goal: to leave footprints on the surface of the moon and Mars. Although this vision is controversial, it gave NASA a target to aim for. However, it soon became clear to NASA that as far as funding is concerned, it is facing a broken trough. The agency was therefore forced to break through the "firewall" that traditionally (albeit imperfectly) protected science from the budget deviations of the manned space flight programs and vice versa. "I guess it wouldn't be a novelty to say that NASA doesn't have enough money to do all the things it's asked to do," says Bill Claybaugh, director of NASA's Research and Analysis Division. And even in the space agencies of other countries, the cash does not flow like liquid hydrogen.

NRC's periodic teams are taking a step back to check if the world's planetary research programs have gone off the rails. The list of goals below combines their main priorities.

1 Earth climate monitoring

When in the background the excitement of ATV trips on Mars and the pulling of the veil over the face of Titan is bubbling, people sometimes tend to see the gray but burning task - the care of our planet, as a matter of course. And NASA and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) did neglect it. The Gentos NRC team claimed in 2005 that "the environmental monitoring satellite system is in danger of collapsing". Since then the situation has worsened. Over the course of five years, NASA transferred 600 million dollars from earth sciences to the space shuttle and space station project. Meanwhile, the U.S. National Environmental Monitoring Satellite System has severely exceeded its budget and has been forced to downsize, getting rid of instruments that were essential to estimating global warming, such as instruments that measure incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation.

As a result, the 24 Earth Observation System satellites are nearing the end of their expected lifespans, before their replacements are ready. Scientists and engineers believe they can continue to operate the satellites, but there is a limit. "We can hold out, but we need a plan now," says Robert Callahan, chief of the Radiation and Climate Branch at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. "You can't wait until the collapse."

If a satellite dies before a replacement is found, holes will open in the data records and they will make it difficult to identify trends. For example, suppose a newer instrument detects that the sun is brighter than its predecessor found, is it because the sun is indeed brighter, or is it because one of the instruments has not been properly calibrated? If there is no time overlap between the satellites, there is a fear that scientists will not be able to decide such a question. The celebrated Landsat series, which has monitored the Earth's surface since 1972, has been down for years, and the US Department of Agriculture has already been forced to buy data from Indian satellites to monitor crop fertility. But there are certain types of data that no country will be able to complete.

The NRC team called for the return of the lost funding, which should take care of funding 17 new tasks during the next decade, such as monitoring ice cover and carbon dioxide levels - essential tasks for predicting climate change and its effects. However, the root of the problem lies in the fact that climate observations fall between the cracks: between routine weather monitoring (NOAA's expertise) and the cutting edge of science (NASA's expertise). "The fundamental problem is that no one is in charge of monitoring the climate," says climate expert Drew Schindel of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. He and others have proposed that the US government's scattered climate programs be unified under the roof of a dedicated agency, which would be responsible for the problem and give it the attention it deserves.

On this subject, see also the environmentalists

2 Preparation of defense against asteroids

It seems that just like monitoring the climate, protecting our planet from asteroids is always falling through the cracks. Neither NASA nor the European Space Agency (ESA) was authorized to prevent the extinction of humanity. The closest thing to this is NASA's Space-guard Survey, a $4 million-a-year telescope observation program that scans the space near Earth in search of objects that are a kilometer in size - the order of magnitude that could create havoc Global, not just regional. But no one has conducted a systematic search for potentially zone-destroying bodies, of which about 20,000 are estimated to come within striking distance of our planet. There is no "giant space rock office" standing ready to assess the threats and pick up the red telephone in case the need arises. It will take 15 years or more to organize and operate a defense plan against an incoming missile, assuming the technology to do so is available and ready for action - and it is not. "Right now the US does not have a comprehensive plan," says space engineer Larry Lemke of NASA's Ames Research Center.

In March 2007, NASA issued, at the request of Congress, a report that could be used as a starting point for such a program. According to the report, the search for objects ranging in size from 100 to 1,000 meters could be attached to the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST), a device that associations of astronomers and companies (the most famous of which is Google) use to scan the sky in search of anything that moves, blinks or crackles. A report published by the LSST project itself in September 2007 estimates that the telescope, as it is currently planned, should discover 80% of the bodies during ten years of operation, from 2014 to 2024. With the help of another 100 million dollars for the purposes of adjustments and adjustments, it will capture 90% of them in its network.

However, like any Earth-based instrument, the LSST has two limitations. First, it has a blind spot: the observation of bodies moving directly towards the Earth in its orbit or just behind it - which are the most dangerous - is only possible at dusk or dawn, and at these times they are easily engulfed in the sun's glow. Second, the instrument can estimate the mass of asteroids only indirectly, based on their brightness. The range of error of the estimates, which are limited to visible light, is up to twofold: a large but dark asteroid can disguise itself as a small, bright asteroid. "Such a difference can be very significant, if we actually decide that preventive action is required," says NASA's Claybaugh.

To plug these holes, the team from NASA also considered building an infrared space telescope at a cost of $500 million, and launching it into its own orbit around the sun. Such a telescope would be able to detect basically any threat to the Earth, and by examining bodies at several wavelengths, also determine their mass with an accuracy of up to 20%. "If you want to do it properly, you have to switch to infrared observation from space," says planetary scientist Donald Yeomans of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), one of the authors of the report.

The second question is, what to do if indeed an asteroid is on its way here. The rule of thumb is that to deflect an asteroid by one Earth radius, its velocity must be changed by a millimeter per second, ten years in advance, by impact, nuclear explosion, drop or gravitational pull. In 2004, a team from ESA that advises on missions related to objects found near the Earth (NEO - Near Earth Objects) recommended to carry out a tool experiment. The proposed spacecraft, known as "Don Quixote" and whose cost is 400 million dollars, is supposed to fire a 400 kg missile into an asteroid and see what happens.

The debris thrown up by the collision will exert a force on the asteroid similar to the effect of gases released from a missile, but no one knows how strong it will be. And that's exactly why they initiated the mission. "You can find out if the kinetic collision strategy will work or not," says Alan Harris of the German Aerospace Center in Berlin. Scientists will choose a body in a distant orbit so that even if something goes wrong they won't accidentally put it on a collision course with Earth.

In the spring of 2006, ESA completed a set of feasibility tests - and immediately buried the plans in the trash because of a lack of money. A joint effort with NASA or the Japan Space Agency (JAXA), or both, will be required to implement the plan.

They know objects that are close to Earth

3 to look for a new life

Before Sputnik, scientists thought that the solar system might be a veritable paradise. Then came the disillusionment. Earth's two brothers turned out to be Hell. Even Mars appeared dead when the Mariner spacecraft revealed a cratered lunar landscape and when the Viking 1 and 2 landers failed to find a single organic molecule. But recently the arenas in which the existence of life is conceivable have doubled. Mars inspires renewed hope. It seems that the moons orbiting the planets, especially Europa and Enceladus, have vast subterranean seas and many raw materials suitable for life. Even Venus may once have been covered by oceans.

As for Mars, NASA is taking a "follow the water" approach, and instead of looking for life on its own, it will look for signs of a possible environment for its existence in the present or past. Its last mission, Phoenix, took off in August 2007 and is scheduled to land in mid-2008 in an unexplored polar region. This is not a mobile space vehicle but a stationary lander with a robotic arm capable of digging to a depth of several centimeters to explore the upper ice layers. The agency's next step is the "Mars Science Laboratory" (MSL) - a space vehicle the size of a car and costing 1.5 billion dollars, whose launch is planned at the end of 2009, and it will land a year later.

However, the scientists would like to gradually return to the direct search for living creatures or their remains. The European Space Agency plans to launch the ExoMars spacecraft in 2013, which will be equipped with a chemistry laboratory similar to the one Viking had, and another important facility: a drilling rig capable of penetrating to a depth of two meters, deep enough to pass through the toxic surface layers and reach places where it may have survived organic material.

Unfortunately, the path of research after that becomes blurred. The only task that is the priority of most scientists - not only for the search for life, but also for the study of the solar system in general - is to bring rocks and dust from Mars to Earth, for analysis. Even a little bit will take us a long way toward removing the cloud from the history of the planet, as the Apollo samples did from the moon. NASA's budget concerns have delayed the multibillion-dollar mission until 2024 at the earliest, but a glimmer of hope rekindled over the summer, when the agency began considering modifying the MSL lab so it could store samples for an eventual collector.

As for the moon Europa, which orbits Jupiter, scientists' first priority is the Koffee spacecraft, which will measure how the moon's shape and gravity field respond to Jupiter's tidal forces. If there is an ocean inside the moon, its surface will rise and fall at a rate of 30 meters; And if not, then only by one meter. Magnetic readings and ground-penetrating radar will also be able to track ocean waters, and cameras will map the surface in preparation for future landings that will eventually come and include drilling.

For Titan, the natural continuation of the ongoing Cassini mission will be the launch of the coffee probe and, in addition, a soil sample. Titan's atmosphere, which is similar to that of the Earth, opens up the possibility of flying in a hot air balloon filled with hot "air", which can occasionally dive and scoop up rocks and dirt. The goal, according to Jonathan Lunin from the University of Arizona, will be to "analyze the organic components of the surface to see if there are systematic trends that teach about the beginning of self-organization, which is how life began on Earth, according to most origin-of-life researchers."

In January 2007, NASA finally began to thoroughly test these missions. The agency plans to choose next year between Europe and Titan, so that in about ten years a spacecraft costing $2 billion will be able to reach one of these destinations. The heavenly body that is not chosen will have to wait another ten years.

In the end, it may turn out that life on Earth is unique after all. Disappointing, no doubt, but that doesn't mean all the effort was in vain. "I see astrobiology as more than just a search for life," says Bruce Jakusky, director of the Center for Astrobiology at the University of Colorado. It also deals with the question of how diverse life can be - or what inhibits its diversity, what are the preconditions for its formation, and how the wilderness gave birth to life four billion years ago on our planet. This research is therefore not only concerned with finding evil in the cosmos, but also with wondering about our origins.

4 explain the formation of the planets

The origin of the planets, just like the origin of life, was a complex and multi-stage process. Tzedek was the eldest who paved the way for the rest. Did it build slowly, like the other planets, or did it take shape in a single gravitational wave, like a small star? Did it form farther from the Sun and move inward, as the higher-than-usual levels of heavy elements in it indicate - and if so, could it have pushed smaller celestial bodies out of its way? Juno, the spacecraft that NASA plans to launch in 2011 to orbit the giant planet and its moons, may provide some answers.

Those interested in the formation of planets will also want to follow the "Stardust" mission, which last year brought samples of the dust cloud (the "floor") surrounding the solid nucleus of a comet. "We've only scratched the surface," says Stardust team leader Donald Brownlee of the University of Washington. "Stardust has shown that comets are excellent collectors of material from the solar nebula of the early solar system. These materials were packed in ice and stored until the age of the solar system. Stardust has discovered amazing things from the inner solar system, from extrasolar sources and maybe even from exploding Pluto-like objects, but the sample is limited.” The Japanese agency JAXA is planning a direct sampling of an actual cometary nucleus.

Our moon is another place to conduct cosmo-archaeological research. The Moon has long been the Rosetta Stone of understanding the history of collisions in the early Solar System. This was done by linking the relative ages deduced from the crater counts with the absolute dating provided by the samples from the American Apollo missions and the Russian Luna missions. However, the spacecraft of the 60s landed in a limited range of areas. They did not reach the Aitken Basin, a continent-sized crater on the far side, whose age may indicate when the moon's formation actually ended. NASA is now considering sending a robot to bring a sample from there. The cost of such an operation can reach half a billion dollars.

One of the strange things about the solar system is that the main asteroid belt probably formed before Mars, which in turn formed before Earth - indicating that the wave of planet formation, which may have been triggered by the planet Jupiter, flowed inward. But does Venus fit this progression pattern? "There is no information," says planet formation expert Doug Lin of the University of California, Santa Cruz. "There's just no information." Venus, with its acidic clouds, the enormous pressures that prevail on it, similar to those at the bottom of the ocean, and the furnace temperatures that prevail there, is not exactly a friendly environment for spacecraft. An NRC team in 2002 recommended sending a balloon, which would stay on the ground for only a short time to collect samples and then return to colder space to analyze or transport them back to Earth. The Soviet Union sent balloons to Venus in the mid-80s, and the Russian space agency—which without that mission would have ceased to exist as far as planetary research is concerned—is now planning to send a new lander.

There is quite a bit of overlap between studies on the origin of the planets and studies on the origin of life. Jakuski puts it this way: "Venus lies on the inner border of the habitable zone. Mars at its outer limit. Earth lies in the middle. And understanding the differences between these planets is a central issue in the question of life beyond the solar system."

A star is born (which also refers to the birth of solar systems)
Know planets outside the solar system

5 Escape from the solar system

Two years ago, the famous spaceships of the Voyager operation were affected by a funding crisis. NASA, desperate for money, said it might be forced to cease operations. This did not happen in the end thanks to the public protest that arose. No object ever touched by human hands has traveled farther than Voyager 1: currently - more than 103 astronomical units (AU) - that is, 103 times the distance from Earth to the Sun - and every year it gains another 3.6 AU. In 2002 or 2004 (scientists disagree) it entered the mysterious multilayered outer boundary of the Solar System, where outgoing solar particles and inflowing interstellar gas collide head-on.

But Voyager was designed to explore the outer planets, not interstellar space, and its plutonium batteries are running low. NASA has long pondered the possibility of sending a dedicated spacecraft, and in a 2004 NRC report on solar physics, it was claimed that the agency should begin work towards achieving the goal.

This spacecraft is supposed to measure the proportion of amino acids among the interstellar particles to see how much of the solar system's organic matter came from outside; to search for antimatter particles that may originate from tiny black holes or dark matter; understand how the boundary filters materials and cosmic rays, which may affect the Earth's climate; and find out if the nearby interstellar space has a magnetic field, which may play a crucial role in the formation of stars. The spacecraft will play the role of a tiny space telescope, and will conduct cosmological observations that will not be blocked by the dust of the solar system. It may investigate the phenomenon known as the Pioneer Anomaly - an unexplained force that acts on two other distant spacecraft, Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 - and locate precisely where the Sun's gravity focuses distant light rays sharply, as a test of Einstein's theory of general relativity. For a good measurement, the scientists will be able to direct the spacecraft to a nearby star such as Epsilon Eridani, although it will take tens of thousands of years to reach it.

To bring the spacecraft to a distance of hundreds of astronomical units in a researcher's lifetime (and of its plutonium power source) it would need to be accelerated to a speed of 15 AU per year. In the end, there are three options: a large one powered by an ion engine whose power source is a nuclear reactor, a medium one with an ion engine whose power source is plutons generators, and a large one powered by a solar sail.

The details of the large (36,000 kg) and medium (1,000 kg) spacecraft were worked out in 2005 by teams headed, respectively, by Thomas Zurbachen from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and Ralph McNutt from the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. It is highly likely that the small possibility will eventually fly. ESA's Cosmic Vision program is currently considering a proposal from an international team of scientists led by Robert Wimer-Schwingerover of the University of Kiel in Germany. NASA may also join.

A 200 meter wide solar sail can carry a 500 kg spaceship. After the launch from Earth, the sail will first drift towards the sun, getting as close as it dares - right into the orbit of the planet Mercury - and then will be thrown out by the intense sunlight. Like a windsurfer, steering the spaceship will be done by leaning on one side or the other. Just before crossing Jupiter's orbit, she will unfurl the sail and sail on. To prepare for this mission, the engineers need to design a sail that weighs sufficiently little and test its performance in a less ambitious mission.

"Such a mission, whether led by ESA or by NASA, is the next logical step in our space research," says Wimer-Schwingrober. "All in all, the space offers more than a study of our very, very close neighborhood." The estimated price tag for such a mission is $2 billion, including 30 years of operating expenses. The study of the outer planets has helped humans understand how Earth fits into a larger pattern, and the study of the interstellar circuit will make the same contribution to the solar system as a whole.

Threatening asteroids

Dinosaur killers, which are 10 kilometers in diameter, hit the Earth every 100 million years on average. Asteroids wreaking global destruction, which are a kilometer or more in size, arrive about once every half a million years. City destroyers, which are 50 meters long, strike maybe once in a thousand years.

The "Space Guard" scanning project discovered a little more than 700 bodies that are a kilometer in size, and none of them pose a threat in the coming centuries. The detection rate is decreasing, showing that the scan detected about 75% of the total.

The chance that among the remaining 25% there is a body that will harm us is indeed a small chance, but the consequences of such an event will be great. Statistically, the blood price of the risk amounts to 1,000 deaths per year on average. Smaller asteroids will kill about 100 people per year on average.

Plan of action

  • Expanding the search for asteroids to include smaller bodies, perhaps by using a dedicated infrared space telescope
  • Testing tools to divert an asteroid from its orbit in a controlled manner
  • Development of a formal system for assessing potential threats

the right thing?

Scientists do not agree on manned space flights. Some believe that they do not fit in with scientific goals, and are even harmful to them. Others believe that not only are the goals intertwined, but that they are essentially the same thing: for them, scientific curiosity and travel for the sake of adventure are two sides of the same coin, the urge to explore. Others believe that humans will eventually want to leave Earth, either out of desire or out of desperation, even if the time has not yet come.

Whatever the views of the researchers, they all agree on some basic lines. First, although astronauts can conduct effective scientific research in space and on the Moon and Mars, the cost of sending people far outweighs the benefit to science. This may change in the future, when robots have exhausted their capabilities, but for the time being, a decision on a manned program must be made according to its other advantages; Such a program is not first and foremost a scientific project. The director of NASA, Michael Griffin, clearly said that the Mars initiative or the Moon initiative is not related to science, even though science also benefits from it.

Second, the space agency needs to respect the firewall between robotic and manned missions, because the goals of these two wings of the space program are completely separate, for now. Third, both government initiatives and the private flight market have something to contribute. After the retirement of the space shuttle, followed by the International Space Station, the orbit around the Earth will slowly pass into private hands. NASA and other space agencies will thus be able to stay on the cutting edge.

Finally, if the nations of the world are going to send astronauts into space, they should at least give the passengers something valuable and inspiring to do. For most researchers - the space station, at least in its current form, does not count. Mars is considered. The moon is still hotly contested.

Number grinders

  • NASA's budget is $16.8 billion per year, about 0.6% of the general federal budget. Three-fifths of it is intended for manned space flights, one-third for science (spaceships for the planets and telescopes in space aimed at surveying the wider universe) and the rest for aeronautics.
  • The agency predicts that the next attempt to reach the moon will cost about 100 billion dollars over the next decade. The Apollo program cost about the same.
  • The money comes from the gradual departure of the space station and the shuttle. President George W. Bush backed out of his original promise to give a few more billions, so the space program had to undergo a 20% cut. Many tasks were canceled or postponed.
  • NASA director Michael Griffin estimates that if the agency's budget stays close to inflation, astronauts will be able to land on Mars in the late 30s of the 21st century.

And more on the subject

The current location of the Voyager and Pioneer spacecraft

NASA report on the asteroid threat


US National Research Council reports:

Life on Mars
Earth Sciences
Science Budget
Solar physics
Solar system

18 תגובות

  1. Michael,
    Your words are disrespectful to others, but I respect your right to express yourself that way 🙂

  2. To Judah:
    Indeed I see that you have internalized the scientific method.
    You asked how many inaccuracies can be inserted in one response and straight away set up an experiment and inserted a maximum number of inaccuracies.
    Well done.
    I will be ready to address your words only after you understand my words.

  3. To Mr. Michael
    How many inaccuracies can a person write in one response. in it and we will check.
    1 It is written explicitly that I see a contradiction in the behavior of the galaxy.
    2 The simple universe can also explain slower movement than expected according to Newton because it does not consider gravitation for the purpose of movement. I said it and I will not add.
    3 I did not write because of new readers in the system. I'm tired of you attributing ulterior motives to me.
    4 I understood Milgrom very well and do not underestimate the discovery of the galaxy.
    5 So you joined those who agree that there is no dark mass? . With God's help, the day will come when you will join Yehuda Sabdarmish who thinks that the galaxies do not move because of gravity.
    6 My words about the location of the dark mass are pure and not nonsense. Only people who do not understand physics are capable of thinking like this in their innocence. I will explain to you so that you will be educated. Well, only if we concentrate most of the dark mass in the clouds of spiral galaxies, that's the only way we can explain the high rotation speed of the aforementioned clouds as well. This is not the place for a more detailed explanation. It's just a shame that people you define as not understanding physics have to explain such a simple thing to you It puts you one step lower than people like me who don't understand physics at all.
    7 Later you again accuse me of "deliberate deception". How poor of you
    8 If the dark mass was concentrated as you say in the center of the galaxy, the clouds around the galaxy would move slowly, which is not the case.
    9 To conclude, you again put intentions in my mind as to why I use Newton's formulas. Really not worth a comment.
    10- In conclusion, the problem of science is with commenters who kill everything that does not fit their paradigm. Too bad. Because you are not stupid. Although, as you noticed, you need to learn some physics.

    Good evening, take it with a sense of humor.
    Sabdarmish Yehuda.

  4. Dawn:
    I know all the things you have been talking about for decades and they are completely irrelevant.
    I will not argue with you on this topic because it is really not important. I've already said that I see no place to judge those who chose to send humans into space and I don't know if I wouldn't do the same.
    If you want to read the opinion of a real expert in the field (who dismisses your claims completely), read the book VOODOO SCIENCE The Road from Foolishness to Fraud, written by Robert Park - professor of physics and head of the physics department at the University of Maryland who was head of the American Physical Society in Washington.

  5. Yehuda:
    When an entire galaxy operates exactly according to the known laws of gravitation (in complete contradiction to MOND and the like) then it is a contradiction to MOND (even if you don't see it).
    Statements about the explanatory power of the "simple universe" contribute nothing. If you give the explanation it will be possible to refer to it. If you don't give - there is no explanation. On that occasion you should also give an explanation for all the contradictions between the simple universe and reality. I have no intention of repeating the discussion that ended just because you think there are now new readers who haven't read it. The entire scientific community dismisses your words and you are on your own without any reasoning.
    I do not know what discovery you are waiting for and I do not know if the discovery you are waiting for will be revealed (in fact I am quite convinced that there is no reality that will allow the discovery you are waiting for and therefore it will never be revealed). When a food discovery is made, according to the discovery, decide what to say. Do you understand, Judah? This is how it is with thinking people - we do not decide in advance what will be said about any undefined thing. I know it's hard for you to digest this because you know that anything that is not revealed will trigger a reaction in you that will protect the simple universe, but the situation is different for those who are not religious.
    Regarding your conversation with Milgrom - you admit that you didn't understand him, so it's a shame to even mention it.
    Your disdain for the significance of the discovery of this galaxy shows that you do not understand at all how scientific research works.
    In scientific research - in order to find out the effect of a certain factor, one tries to create an experiment in which the effect of all other factors is minimal. It is difficult for us to create galaxies, but if I believed in God, I would say that he built this galaxy for us so that we can test gravity even on these scales and without the influence of dark matter.
    When there is a physical law that an entire galaxy obeys and when this law corresponds to the experiments we do in our immediate environment, it is certainly convincing and it is also a good reason to think that in places where it is difficult to find verification of the law, this difficulty stems from the involvement of additional factors (such as dark matter).
    Your words about the place of concentration of the dark mass are complete nonsense, not to mention the deliberate deception.
    No dark mass around the galaxies will accelerate the rotation speed of the stars inside the galaxy. The movement of the stars can only be accelerated due to the presence of mass in the inner part of their orbit. This is maximum high school physics and I find it hard to believe that you don't know this!

    Your argument about using Newton instead of Einstein because the formulas are simpler is really funny when it comes to a discussion in which not even one formula appeared (simple and complicated).
    You use Newton's name only to increase the feeling of the "stagnation" of science and to divert the discussion from the main point to the bland.

  6. To Michael
    1. Before they sent a man into space, they sent a monkey
    2. Read articles about studies under the heading of trification. There are people who are working in the direction of how to make Mars habitable. It turns out that there are those who think that it is a proper place and it is possible to turn it into such a place through a certain process.

    In conclusion, the manned space flights do not meet any of the conditions you mentioned because they don't need to, we have already tried and seen that it is good and even works great.
    Why do you think astronauts stay a long time on a space station? Why do you think broad public interest in spaceflight waned when the Apollo project was terminated. People do not connect to robots and even less connect to the research front of the world of physics.

  7. To Michael
    Well, I remember this article, but I don't see the meaning given to it.
    My simple universe did not need dark mass and could explain the above galaxy motion.
    And not only that, just for the curiosity of the matter, you might be interested to know that according to the idea of ​​the simple universe there is a possibility that the galaxy will rotate much more slowly than expected according to Newton because what rotates it is not gravity.
    I just have to wait a bit and see that such a galaxy is found, what will you say then Michael?

    About Mond. In a conversation with Professor Milgrom when I showed him that according to the simple universe there is no need for gravitation, he answered why would you cancel it after all there are galaxies that behave almost according to Newton. That was about eight years ago and I'm not making this up. That is, he was not overly bothered by the reality of galaxies that behave almost according to Newton. But I admit that I don't know why he was indifferent.
    I see this galaxy has a problem with Hammond
    I see this galaxy as the exception to all the other galaxies and I don't think it proves Newton's gravitation formula. Why does it seem that to show equality between the sexes in business we take you to a meeting room where there is one woman among a hundred men. come on.
    By the way the measurements made are up to 35,000 light years. And in the article it is stated that it is desirable to check later.
    And again, contrary to what people think, the dark mass is supposed to be concentrated mainly in the gas clouds surrounding the galaxy, so this article may have been too hasty to draw conclusions. I wouldn't jump to conclusions just because one galaxy doesn't need a dark mass,
    And besides, I'm already tired of saying that the use of Newton's formulas instead of the relativity that I use is only for my convenience and adds almost nothing to the measurement error. There is always someone (this time you) who is happy to tease me about Newton-Einstein.
    So good night at this point.
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  8. Oh Yehuda Yehuda:

    The link you saw is

    And in it we are talking about a galaxy that behaves exactly according to the known laws of gravity, so the scientists conclude that it does not contain dark matter. Did you forget so quickly?
    The article talks about the search for life, but not about SETI, but about what needs to be done in space to advance research on this topic. Can you point to one thing in the article that is not based on space flight?
    The scientists you spoke with are indeed a representative sample and it's not at all surprising that they don't find it appropriate to make an effort and re-examine what has been tested many times just because you tell them that it should be done. Think about it. After all, as Roy told you in another discussion, if the scientists were working to please people who give them advice even though they didn't bother to learn the existing knowledge, they wouldn't be able to do anything useful.
    In any case, the galaxy in the article (which the scientists are currently working on confirming and increasing the accuracy of the measurements made for it) will advance the research you are talking about much more than epsilon lira.
    The fact that you say "Newton forever" about a hundred years after his theory was replaced by the theory of relativity is simply funny. why are you doing this After all, you know the truth (on this issue).
    I repeat things I have already said because you show a certain tendency to forget. The dark matter hypothesis stems from considerations similar to those that have already led to the discovery of many celestial bodies that were dark until these considerations betrayed their existence.
    The phenomena that cause people to believe in the existence of dark matter cannot be explained by means of MOND or any theory that changes the laws of gravitation because it is, among other things, gravitational dusting around areas where there is no visible mass.
    But again, in case I didn't make myself clear enough, the article in the link (as far as further verification of the measurements) is simply a knock out of all MOND-like ideas

  9. To Michael
    I don't know exactly which galaxy Saul showed us, which contradicts Le Sage, and I really don't care.
    In general, everywhere in the universe and in every galaxy, gravitation works, the question is whether it works according to Newton's formula.
    And as for SETI, are they specifically speaking in the section of searching for new life?
    And regarding epsilon lira, I tried to get people interested in making the necessary measurements, today there are already the appropriate tools for that. But,…..none of the scientists that I looked into think that there could even be a possibility that gravitation does not work according to Newton's formula, therefore there is no action in this direction and I do not foresee that there will be in the near future.
    In a conversation I had with Professor Milgrom on the subject, several years ago he grinned and told me that this could not be proven, and the reason he gave, while smiling, was that even if I found contradictions in the behavior of the stars, the scientists would find all kinds of reasons why Newton was right after all. After all, this is exactly what was done when they added the dark mass for the purpose of justifying the motion of the galaxies according to Newton.
    Really a lost battle in advance. Newton forever!
    Have a good evening

    Sabdarmish Yehuda.

  10. Another article dedicated to Judah:
    Tests that can be conducted without space flight are not included in the program discussing space missions (just as cancer research, which is by all accounts important, is not included in it). Note that the SETI program is also not mentioned here.

  11. Yehuda:
    Everything that can be tested without reaching the testing areas has already been tested or is being tested or will be tested naturally.
    This is how they discovered that there is a need for an explanation for the phenomena that are currently attributed to dark matter and this is how they also discovered the existence of an entire galaxy that at distances exceeding those of Epsilon Lyra obeys the laws of gravitation (we both saw the article that Shaul pointed out to us).
    I'm afraid that what motivates you is a strong desire to prove that the LeSage theory is correct and that this is the reason why you do not draw the required conclusion from the story of that galaxy, but I remind you that this theory conflicts with many other findings that are much easier to check (and which, in fact, are checked every moment naturally). Therefore, if you want to allow this Torah to be accepted, then the most important thing you must do is explain why it is allowed to contradict the findings.

  12. To Michael
    You don't have to go far to check the correctness of the gravitation formula. You have to want to do it first. Pioneer anole research and the randomly discovered Play Bay effect are definitely a step in the right direction.
    I don't know if I managed to explain to you, but there is a possibility to check the correctness of Newton's gravitation formula with the help of double double stars and a good representative for this purpose is the double star system - double "epsilon lira".
    This will make an extremely accurate test note of the mass of each pair in the system according to its movement. In the second step, check if this mass corresponds to the cycle time of the double double system. The stars in each pair are about one hundred and fifty astronomical units apart, and the distance between the pairs is about ten thousand astronomical units.
    An accurate measurement of the epsilon lira movement will prove the correctness of Newton's formula to a distance of 10,000 YA, which is at least a hundred times more than what is proven today (if we ignore the "small deviations" of the Pioneer anomaly and the Play Bay effect}.
    In the article I wrote, in which I used the assumption of coordinated motion between the pairs in epsilon lira, I discovered a serious deviation from Newton's formula, and the resulting gravity was lower.
    You also asked why gravity, well I think that if pushing gravity is the explanation for gravitation, then the particles that build this theory will be the basis for the other branches of physics of all kinds and especially for the strong and weak force.
    Starting with gravitation is easier, especially when I have a cheap way to test the idea with epsilon lira. One should want to abolish the stifling principle called the "cosmological principle", which stifles any progress in expanding the range of scientific theories and formulas.

    Have a good day
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  13. Yehuda:
    It's not really a power, but I'd like to put you on a few facts.
    How exactly can you test the validity of the laws of gravity?
    The most likely way to test this kind of thing is to launch a spacecraft and observe its trajectory and the differences between it and those calculated based on the forces it exerts and the forces of gravity. Therefore, an experiment to test the validity of the laws of gravitation along a certain trajectory is simply launching a spaceship along that trajectory.
    If you send a spacecraft (which is an expensive thing) you try to use its launch for several purposes - this is the case with all spacecraft - there is nothing wrong with that.
    Both the Pioneer effect was discovered in this way and the Playboy effect, and this shows that the subject is indeed being monitored in every space flight (and this is natural).
    By the way, it is a puzzle to me why only the law of gravitation interests you and not, for example, the electromagnetic laws. Maybe these laws are also changing? Why don't we check them out too? In order to test them, a special experiment is required since electromagnetic attraction is not one of the factors that naturally affect the flight path.

    If the motivation for manned space flights was only the one you are talking about, then:
    1. Just as before trying drugs on humans, they are tested on the computer and on tissues and animals, so it makes sense to try space flights on humans only after the other tests have been exhausted.
    2. Just as people are not tested on just substances, but only those who want to use them for their well-being, so it is also logical to send people only to places where they think there is a chance that it will be necessary to evacuate the earth.
    Manned space flights do not meet either of these two conditions.
    This does not mean that I rule them out because humans also act with other motives and I do not feel that I am qualified to judge their motives but I thought it was right to point out that the motives for this are not only the need to check the survival of the human race.
    This does not mean that the goal is not related to survival and it is possible to defend the position that the research necessary to ensure survival can be carried out by humans more efficiently than machines and perhaps there is justification for this, as mentioned.

  14. What is hidden behind the goal of manned flight is, in my opinion, more important than all of the above-mentioned respectable issues. The issue is the survival of the human race and the knowledge we have gained with great effort. Only when we tune in and know how to fly people to another planet and subsequently live an independent life on another planet will we have a real chance of surviving catastrophes.

    Robots on another planet is nice and nice, knowledge of physics is important but the question is do we knowingly choose to be in the story of the dinosaurs.

  15. That's it, I don't think it should be done as a side effect. I think it is important enough that we single out several tasks for it. It must be done with deliberate action. This must be an important mission, the sixth mission.
    But you are also right, in the first stage research on the various anomalies can provide the goods.

    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  16. Yehuda:
    What you say is missing is not missing. It is simply self-evident and will be accepted as a by-product of almost any action taken in space.
    After all, all spacecraft are tried to navigate with the help of the known laws, and if the laws are not correct, it will be reflected in the navigation results. This is why we are aware of the Pioneer effect (which appears as one of the subjects of the study and whose investigation is actually one of the aspects of checking the validity of the laws) and the Playboy effect.

  17. I'm sorry, but in my humble opinion one task is missing here which is the most essential:- proving the correctness of the physics formulas in the vastness of the cosmos. And above all, of course, the correctness of the gravitation formulas at cosmological distances and enormous masses.
    Today, the justification for the use of the physics formulas known throughout the cosmos is justified only by the cosmological principle which claims that what is true in our immediate surroundings is also true at a distance. This principle is more of a wishful thinking than science. The justification that actually rests on the reason: - why not, but in science the application of physical laws should To do just for the reason:- why yes.

    Please respond gently
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  18. What stupidity (and sorry for the popular style), in the age of computing-robotics-information, to send a man to the moon or to Mars at fantastic costs.
    After all, it is possible, at much lower costs, to send robots to the same destinations, which will perform the same actions as astronauts, and even much more, and over much longer periods.
    What's more, the safety of is not guaranteed at all
    The astronauts. Well, if there is a malfunction
    And the mission will not succeed, both human lives and huge budgets will be lost. Does anyone want man's first visit to Mars (the phonetic resemblance between man and Mars is interesting) to end with a memorial monument in the form of a spaceship smashed on the surface of the "planet without organic molecules"? For comparison, go out and think, which astronaut could have performed such a complex task and so on As cheap (in relation to the cost of a manned flight) as they have been doing for many months, the bumps (who invented this funny term?) "Spirit" and "Opportunity" on Mars.

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.