Monthly Archives: July 2010

NASA Finds Super-Hot Planet with Unique Comet-Like Tail

Posted on by

Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope have established the existence of a baked object that could be called a "cometary planet." The gas giant planet, named HD 209458b, is orbiting so close to its star that its heated atmosphere is escaping into space.

Observations taken with Hubble's Cosmic Origins Spectrograph (COS) propose powerful stellar winds are sweeping the cast-off atmospheric material behind the parched planet and shaping it into a comet-like tail.

"Since 2003 scientists have theorized the lost mass is being pushed back into a tail, and they have even intended what it looks like," said astronomer Jeffrey Linsky of the University of Colorado in Boulder, leader of the COS study. "We think we have the best observational proof to support that theory. We have measured gas coming off the planet at specific speeds, some coming toward Earth. The most likely interpretation is that we have measured the velocity of material in a tail."

The planet, located 153 light-years from Earth, weighs slightly less than Jupiter but orbits 100 times closer to its star than the Jovian giant. The roasted planet zips about its star in a short 3.5 days. In contrast, our solar system's best planet, Mercury, orbits the Sun in 88 days. The extrasolar planet is one of the most intensely scrutinized, because it is the first of the few known alien worlds that can be seen transitory in front of, or transiting, its star. Linsky and his team used COS to examine the planet's atmosphere during transiting events. During a transit, astronomers study the structure and chemical makeup of a planet's atmosphere by sampling the starlight that passes through it. The dip in starlight because of the planet's passage, without the atmosphere, is very small, only about 1.5 percent. When the atmosphere is added, the dip jumps to 8 percent, indicating a bloated atmosphere.

COS detected the heavy elements carbon and silicon in the planet's super-hot, 2,000-degree-Fahrenheit atmosphere. This detection exposed the parent star is heating the entire atmosphere, dredging up the heavier elements and allowing them to escape the planet.

The COS data also showed the material leaving the planet was not all traveling at the same speed. "We found gas escaping at high velocities, with a great amount of this gas flowing toward us at 22,000 miles per hour," Linsky said. "This large gas flow is probable gas swept up by the stellar wind to form the comet-like tail trailing the planet."

Hubble's latest spectrograph has the ability to probe a planet's chemistry at ultraviolet wavelengths not accessible to ground-based telescopes. COS is proving to be an important instrument for probing the atmospheres of "hot Jupiters" like HD 209458b.

Another Hubble instrument, the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS), observed the planet in 2003. The STIS data showed an active, evaporating atmosphere, and a comet-tail-like structure was optional as a possibility. But STIS wasn't able to obtain the spectroscopic detail necessary to show a tail, or an Earthward-moving component of the gas, during transits. The tail was detected for the first time because of the unique combination of very high ultraviolet sensitivity and good spectral resolution provided by COS.

Although this extreme planet is being roasted by its star, it won't be destroyed anytime soon. "It will take about a trillion years for the planet to evaporate," Linsky said.

The results appeared in the July 10 issue of The Astrophysical Journal.

The Hubble Space Telescope is a project of global cooperation between NASA and the European Space Agency. NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center manages the telescope. The Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) conducts Hubble science operations. STScI is operated for NASA by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. in Washington, D.C.

For more information visit http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/planet-tail.html

Should we clone Neanderthals?

Posted on by

Zach Zorich of Archeology explores the scientific, legal, and ethical obstacles to cloning Neanderthals:

The ultimate goal of studying human evolution is to better understand the human race. The opportunity to meet a Neanderthal and see firsthand our common but separate humanity seems, on the surface, too good to pass up. But what if the thing we learned from cloning a Neanderthal is that our curiosity is greater than our compassion? Would there be enough scientific benefit to make it worth the risks? "I'd rather not be on record saying there would," Holliday told me, laughing at the question. "I mean, come on, of course I'd like to see a cloned Neanderthal, but my desire to see a cloned Neanderthal and the little bit of information we would get out of it...I don't think it would be worth the obvious problems." Hublin takes a harder line. "We are not Frankenstein doctors who use human genes to create creatures just to see how they work." Noonan agrees, "If your experiment succeeds and you generate a Neanderthal who talks, you have violated every ethical rule we have," he says, "and if your experiment fails...well. It's a lose-lose." Other scientists think there may be circumstances that could justify Neanderthal cloning.

"If we could really do it and we know we are doing it right, I'm actually for it," says Lahn. "Not to understate the problem of that person living in an environment where they might not fit in. So, if we could also create their habitat and create a bunch of them, that would be a different story."

"We could learn a lot more from a living adult Neanderthal than we could from cell cultures," says Church. Special arrangements would have to be made to create a place for a cloned Neanderthal to live and pursue the life he or she would want, he says. The clone would also have to have a peer group, which would mean creating several clones, if not a whole colony. According to Church, studying those Neanderthals, with their consent, would have the potential to cure diseases and save lives. The Neanderthals' differently shaped brains might give them a different way of thinking that would be useful in problem-solving. They would also expand humanity's genetic diversity, helping protect our genus from future extinction. "Just saying 'no' is not necessarily the safest or most moral path," he says. "It is a very risky decision to do nothing."

Hawks believes the barriers to Neanderthal cloning will come down. "We are going to bring back the mammoth...the impetus against doing Neanderthal because it is too weird is going to go away." He doesn't think creating a Neanderthal clone is ethical science, but points out that there are always people who are willing to overlook the ethics. "In the end," Hawks says, "we are going to have a cloned Neanderthal, I'm just sure of it."

Link.

White House/ Senate Compromise Reaction

Posted on by

Senate Committee's NASA Plan Cuts Moon Program, NY Times

"The committee acceded on the cancellation of the Ares I rocket, which is part of the return-to-the-moon program known as Constellation, but called on NASA to start development of a larger heavy-lift rocket in 2011, likely to be based on shuttle components, that could be ready for launching by the end of 2016. The administration had proposed waiting until as late as 2015 to start work on a heavy-lift rocket, which would be needed for human missions to asteroids and Mars."

A small step for bill - but a leap for JSC, Houston Chronicle

"Although the White House has not formally signaled its approval of the Senate plan, there may be enough carrots in the proposed legislation to win Obama's support. "We think this is a great start," said Lori Garver, NASA's deputy administrator. "It accomplishes the major shifts the president set out to have for the space program." An unnamed White House official not authorized to comment said "the bill appears to contain the critical elements necessary for achieving the president's mission for NASA."

Panel approves compromise plan to save space jobs and add shuttle mission, Reuters

"The NASA plan approved by the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee supports President Obama's call to end the moon-bound Constellation program, the human space flight successor to the shuttle program. But the three-year NASA spending plan passed by the committee adds a $1 billion shuttle mission to the International Space Station for next summer or fall and leaves contracts, equipment and personnel in place in case other flights are needed."

Adoption of NASA compromise means continued leadership in space exploration (Rep. Frank Wolf), The Hill

"In a rare victory for bipartisanship and the legislative branch, Congress has rallied behind an important compromise plan to ensure continued American leadership in space. Six months after the release of the president's budget -- which effectively mothballed NASA's exploration program -- the Senate and House have sent a clear signal to the White House that such cuts are unacceptable."

Mayor Battle: New NASA Bill Is Good For Huntsville, WHNT

"I am very pleased with many provisions of this bill as it returns us to a balanced mix of commercial and government funded space travel and research and development for future systems. This bill is a breakthrough in moving us much closer to the positions established by Senator Shelby. This bill is good for the Nation, good for Alabama and good for Huntsville."

Senate committee orders a new course -- and new rocket -- for NASA, Orlando Sentinel

"However, Space Coast officials had bought into Obama's plan to spend $10.1 billion to develop capacity for commercial rockets to fly astronauts to the International Space Station, more robotic missions and technology research that the administration had said would produce a new rocket capable of flying humans to an asteroid by 2025. Brevard officials had hoped that Kennedy Space Center and surrounding businesses could compete for more commercial launches and robotic missions as well as chunks of the research money."

Is NASA Advertising Allowed or Prohibited?

Posted on by

- NASA GRC Solicitation: Purchase of Billboard Space for Educational Information: billboard # 1204
- NASA GRC Solicitation: Purchase of Billboard Space for Educational Information: billboard #222
- NASA GRC Solicitation: Purchase of Billboard Space for Educational Information: Cleveland Hopkins Airport

"NASA/GRC has a requirement for the purchase of display units located at the "Arrival" and "Exit" walls at Cleveland Hopkins Airport, Cleveland, OH. These displays will be used for education and information purposes and will be available to us for a period of eight (8) weeks."

- It May Be Too Late for GRC to Advertise, earlier post
- Got Space?, earlier post

Keith's note: It is not that I don't think NASA should do more to present its value to the taxpayers (they should), but I find it rather curious that Congress is directing NASA to market itself to the American public - and that Congress is doing so after years of chastising NASA for trying to market itself to Congress - directly or indirectly - and even putting prohibitions on advertising, marketing, etc. into law. This is really confusing given that Congress is supposed to serve the the public in the first place. How better to do that than to say "hey, come over here and look at this". If GRC can get away with overt advertising (billboards are rather large after all) then why can't other NASA centers do this?

FDA and the DTCG company MashUp.

Posted on by

I know I said I would stop writing about 23andSerge. I will, but I am still going to write about what I think may go down next week in D.C. Land.

As you may know, I am a big supporter of classifying DTCG tests in certain ways

1. If the company has purported some sort of health benefits or decisions regarding medical care for a test, then it should be classified as a medical device and regulated as such. Class II or Class III

2. If a DTCG test does actually have medical implications for treatment, diagnosis or prevention, regardless of what a company says, this should be a Class III subject to premarket review.

3. If a DTCG test has nothing in the way of health implications or diagnosis, treatment or prevention it should not be considered medical.

If 3 should become item one or 2 based on new evidence, then it should be regulated as item one or 2.

What do I think should happen here with the FDA and DTCG? Well, it depends.

One has to ask first, will regulation stifle innovation?

If you ask me, most of this rhetoric is merely legal polemic. Very similar to how the Pharma companies complain about regulation. I have seen very scant evidence on the horrible effect it has on health or longevity.

In fact most of the "evidence" on regulation seem to come via law school papers and angry blog posts and twitter feeds.

But to get at the heart of this issue facing regulators we need to ask a follow up. Is innovation a good thing?

A priori I would say yes. Always? No.

I challenge anyone to prove to me that some innovation hasn't led to bad things or bad outcomes. "Magic Mineral" anyone? Or how about derivatives trading?

Assuming that not all innovation is good, we can see the role of regulation to prevent the harm of bad innovation. Is that such a bad thing? The general pubic doesn't think so. A poll in May finds that 72% of Americans trust the job the FDA does. They also are wayin favor of regulation of innovation in the space.

Now the FDA needs a litmus test for genomic innovation to define their regulation. What defines bad innovation?

I would say:

1. Potential for human harm from use of innovation.

2. Misrepresentations of expected outcomes from using innovation.

3. Lack of innovation performance of stated use.

I think in some ways, certain DTCG companies have had 2 and 3.

Number One is a potential in some peoples minds, but I have clinical examples that were presented by K.O. a year or 2 ago.

Unfortunately for the FDA, they have some lines and categories already which can create some rigidity in their guidance. And may not apply the scale I use.

But, it is just a construct. Similar to the one I presented before.

Will the FDA throw out traditional guidance here?

No.

They will follow the construct listed here, no matter how many people rant and rave at the DC meeting. Why?

I just told you. The public wants innovation in healthcare regulated. Which leads me to my next question. What do you think congress will do?

The Sherpa Says: We have to stop ranting about how the world will end if this tiny little field with the "unproven" ability to transform medicine sans clinician has to face regulatory scrutiny. Instead, we have to ask, is this a good innovation now? How will we make it a good innovation? Can we?