News Feeds

SpaceX is getting ready to launch its massive Starship rocket tomorrow and we have all the details on the mission

The Hubble Space Telescope has been shut down temporarily after one of its gyroscopes sent faulty telemetry readings back to Earth in late May. The venerable space-based observatory, which has been responsible for some of the most remarkable scientific advances of the last three decades, and stunning astrophotography that became a cultural mainstay, is in its thirty-fourth year of operation.

Hubble’s many and varied accomplishments have been achieved despite a plague of technical challenges over the years. Right out of the gate, it launched with blurry vision, due to an improperly polished lens. The problem was fixed with a space shuttle servicing mission in 1993, three years after launch. Four more servicing missions between 1997 and 2009 repaired and upgraded various parts of the spacecraft.

With the retirement of the space shuttle, the space telescope has now been operating for 15 years without servicing.

Pauses in science operations like the current one are common events for Hubble these days, occurring several times a year in recent times. Hubble’s gyroscopes are the usual culprit.

In fact, a faulty gyroscope previously caused a shutdown barely a month ago, in April 2024, and did the same back in November 2023. In every case, NASA was able to get the space telescope back up and running in short order.

That doesn’t mean there is no cause for concern. Gyroscopes help the telescope orient itself in space, keeping it stable to point at astronomical targets in the distant universe. The last servicing mission in 2009 left the telescope with six operational gyroscopes, but it has been running on three since 2018.

Hubble needs all three to operate at full capacity.

The end of a Hubble gyro reveals the hair-thin wires known as flex leads. They carry data and electricity inside the gyro, and their corrosion has caused gyroscope failures in the past. NASA

But having two wouldn’t necessarily be the end of the mission. It would reduce the area of the sky Hubble can observe, and slow down science operations.

Regardless of the outcome of the current troubles, NASA appears confident that this is not the end of the line, stating in a press release on May 31:

“NASA anticipates Hubble will continue making discoveries throughout this decade and possibly into the next, working with other observatories, such as the agency’s James Webb Space Telescope for the benefit of humanity.”

It doesn’t appear that that will be the last word on the subject, however. A press conference has been called for 4PM EDT on June 4, where NASA’s Director of the Astrophysics Division, Mark Clampin, and Hubble’s project Manager, Patrick Crouse, are expected to give an update on Hubble’s condition.

In the event that Hubble is reduced to two working gyroscopes, NASA recently indicated that it would likely put one of them into safe mode, relying on just one gyroscope and keeping the last in good working order for the future.

With just one gyroscope in operation, magnetometers, sun sensors, and star trackers will need to make up for the work that the other gyroscopes used to do. This takes more time, and would reduce Hubble’s working capacity by 20-25%. Hubble would no longer be able to look at objects closer to Earth than Mars, it would be less capable of catching transient events at a moment’s notice, and it would have to pause observations during parts of its orbit when the Moon and Earth get in the way of its star trackers.

But it would keep the mission alive longer, which is good news for astronomers and astronomy fans everywhere. There is even hope for a future Hubble repair mission, an idea proposed by Jared Isaacman, a private astronaut who will command the upcoming Polaris Dawn mission aboard SpaceX’s Dragon capsule. Currently, Dragon is incapable of docking with Hubble, leaving the idea firmly in the speculative stage for the moment.

As for more immediate plans, we’ll have to see what NASA has to say. Stay tuned for the press conference at 4PM June 4.

The post Hubble Pauses its Science Again appeared first on Universe Today.

In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling against race-based college admissions (which involved Harvard), and the likely illegality of hiring faculty based on race, colleges are beginning to ratchet back on DEI-based admissions and hiring. (Although nobody’s yet taken a college to court for requiring DEI statements, I’m betting that such statements would be banned for constituting compelled speech.)

Now that MIT banned DEI statements for faculty job applications, the other great school in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard, has just followed suit. According to the two articles below, Harvard has banned diversity statements.

Previously, these statements were required by many private and public universities (the University of California was a notorious offender), and they nearly all required three components:  a summary of what you did to advance diversity before you applied for the job, a statement of your philosophy of diversity (and it had to be more than simply “I believe all students should be treated equally”) and, finally, a statement of how you’d increase diversity at the institution were you hired.

It’s clear that all of these initiatives meant racial diversity: if you wrote about “viewpoint diversity” or “socioeconomic diversity,” your application would most likely be tossed in the circular file. (This was in fact guaranteed by rubrics in some schools that evaluated candidates for their diversity statements before looking at the rest of their applications, giving numerical marks to the three parts above. If you didn’t exceed a threshold value for your DEI statement, your application was tossed, regardless of your academic merits.)

This story from the NYT report the deep-sixing of diversity statements at Harvard, though I suspect the statements are just going to be disguised, just as race-based admissions will remain, too, but now adopting application questions like, “Describe the challenges you have overcome before applying here.” This gives you every opportunity to mention race.

But I digress. Read the NYT article by clicking on the first headline, and the Harvard Crimson article by clicking on the second.

Here’s the NYT’s reportage, which is indented; my comments are flush left:

Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences, the university’s largest division, said on Monday that it would no longer require job applicants to submit diversity statements, the latest shift at the university after months of turmoil over its values and the role of equity initiatives in higher education.

Instead, the division will require only finalists for teaching jobs to describe their “efforts to strengthen academic communities” and discuss how they would promote a “learning environment in which students are encouraged to ask questions and share their ideas,” Nina Zipser, the dean for faculty affairs and planning, said in an email to colleagues.

. . . In a statement that echoed Dr. Zipser’s email, Harvard said the “updated approach” would acknowledge “the many ways faculty contribute to strengthening their academic communities, including efforts to increase diversity, inclusion, and belonging.” The university added that the decision amounted to “realigning the hiring process with longstanding criteria for tenured and tenure-track faculty positions.”

To me, the second and third paragraphs imply that this is just a workaround to maintain hiring based largely on race, but using the code words are “strengthening academic communities” including “efforts to increase diversity, inclusion, and belonging.”

One problem with DEI statements is that they purport to equate ethnic diversity with viewpoint diversity, and while that is true to a very limited extent, it also assumes, patronizingly, that different ethnic groups have different viewpoints but that within a group viewpoints are relatively homogenous.  If that were indeed the case, which it isn’t, then maximum viewpoint diversity would require equal (not proportional) number of students or faculty from each ethnic group. If you really wanted viewpoint diversity, you’d use a different set of criteria for both student admission and hiring: criteria based on viewpoints themselves, including ideological stands.

Here’s some pushback from a Harvard professor who apparently holds the false equation of ethnic diversity with viewpoint diversity:

Yet backers of the diversity statements at Harvard and elsewhere have framed them as contemporary methods to promote a range of views, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that ended race-conscious admissions.

“Furor over diversity statements in hiring is a red herring,” Edward J. Hall, a philosophy professor, wrote in The Harvard Crimson in April. He urged a redirection of anger toward “its proper target: not diversity statements themselves, but rather horribly distorted view that has taken hold about what they should contain.”

Well, I’m not sure what the “horribly distorted view” is, but the three components of a diversity statement mentioned above have been explicitly specified by several universities that use them.  And if you want to promote a range of views, are statements emphasizing racial diversity the best way? Why not ask people their views on various issues? Of course, if you’re looking for certain views, then you’re treading into the area of compelled speech. And, of course, most faculty, including those evaluating candidates, are liberals, which makes it hard for them to promote political or ideological diversity in the admissions process.

Finally, this statement disappointed me:

Last week, Harvard said that it would curb its statements about topics not “relevant to the core function of the university.” But it stopped short of fully embracing the notion of institutional neutrality, a principle promoted by the University of Chicago in which universities commit to staying out of political and social matters.

As I wrote recently, the Harvard statement on institutional neutrality, which is at this point only a proposal, is problematic in that its creators don’t seem to fully embrace neutrality but may be willing to make pronouncements about the “core function of a university” that really are statements more about politics or ideology. We really need to see Harvard’s final statement, which would have been much improved, I think, had Steve Pinker been put on the committee that wrote it.

Click to read the Crimson’s take:

The Crimson statement is pretty much the same as above, with Hall (now called “Ned” Hall), again defending the old-style statements:

Hall defended diversity statements as a way to understand how job candidates would educate classrooms of diverse students. But he criticized institutions’ expectations that candidates profess their dedication to “equity-based teaching” as a “horribly distorted view” of what such statements should contain.

Again, this distortion isn’t evident to me, and I’d like to know what Hall means when he says “classrooms of diverse students.”

Finally, Harvard waffles a bit again, leaving a little wiggle room for the traditional function of DEI statements:

Although language on DIB statements has been scrubbed from the appointment and promotion handbook, Zipser presented the changes as a way to balance facilitating diversity and inclusion with other priorities.

“This broader perspective acknowledges the many ways faculty contribute to strengthening their academic communities, including efforts to increase diversity, inclusion, and belonging,” she wrote.

(By the way, is there a difference between “inclusion” and “belonging”?)

The last bit of the second sentence is emphasized for a reason: this is the primary goal of the new statements, but Harvard can’t say it explicitly.  Now I may be being cynical here, and I hope so, but the admission of colleges that they’ll find workarounds for the Supreme Court;s decision makes me think that they’ll find related workarounds for faculty DEI statements.

I have less than a week’s worth of photos left, so please send me your good ones. Thanks!

Today we have part 4 of Ephraim Heller’s birding tour of Bhutan (part 1 is here, part 2 here, and part 3 here). His captions and IDs are indented, and you can enlarge the photos by clicking on them.

Here is installment #4 of photos from my April 2024 birding tour of Bhutan. We begin with a photo of a typical village home.

Today I post my photos of leafbirds (Chloropseidae). Descriptions of the species below are taken from Wikipedia. Leafbirds are found in the Indian Subcontinent and Southeast Asia. Leafbirds are attractive birds and, combined with an attractive song and capacity to mimic sounds, they have become very popular cagebirds. The majority of the trade in this family is confined to Asia. Some populations have been locally depleted by the massive numbers captured for the trade. Leafbirds drop many body feathers when they are handled. This may confuse predators, especially snakes. We were lucky to be in Bhutan during the spring when many trees were blooming.

The golden-fronted leafbird (Chloropsis aurifrons):

The orange-bellied leafbird (Chloropsis hardwickii) is a bird native to the central and eastern Himalayas, Yunnan and northern parts of Southeast Asia. The scientific name commemorates the English naturalist Thomas Hardwicke. First, these males in beautiful but unidentified flowering trees:

These orange-bellied leafbird males are posing in a scarlet sterculia (Sterculia colorata) tree:

And now the orange-bellied leafbird females, also in a scarlet sterculia tree:

Equipment: All animal photos were shot using a Nikon Z9 camera and Nikkor Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S lens. Landscape and architectural photos were shot either with a Nikon Z9 and Nikkor Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S lens or with an iPhone 11.

You can see more of my photos here.

In recent years, China recalled pandas from three out of four US zoos that had the bears, signalling diplomatic tensions between the two countries – but this year China has offered two new pairs of giant pandas

Pulsars that emit radio waves “glitch” as they rotate – this seems to be caused by interruptions to swirling vortices inside these ultra-dense stars

The true history of a mythical place.

An AI that watches you while you eat can estimate how much you’re consuming, and could help people track their calorie intake

China says its Chang’e-6 spacecraft has gathered up soil and rocks from the far side of the moon and has lifted off from the surface, beginning a journey to bring the samples back to Earth. The probe’s payload represents the first lunar samples ever collected from the far side.

In a status update, the China National Space Administration said the Chang’e-6 ascent module successfully reached lunar orbit, where it’s due to transfer the samples to a re-entry capsule hooked up to the probe’s orbiter.

If all goes according to plan, the orbiter will leave the moon’s orbit, head back to Earth and drop off the re-entry capsule for retrieval in China’s Inner Mongolia region sometime around June 25.

This mosaic of color images was taken by the panoramic camera on China’s Chang’e-6 lander, looking toward the north. One of the lander’s legs is seen in the foreground of the fisheye view, and the upper part of the image shows Chaffee Crater, north of the landing site. (Credit: CLEP / CNSA)

Chang’e-6 was launched on its mission on May 3 and landed in the South Pole-Aitken Basin region on June 2 (Beijing time). Using its drill and its robotic arm, the lander collected as much as 2 kilograms (4.4 pounds) of rocks and soil from the landing site. Meanwhile, a mini-rover rolled out onto the surface and took pictures looking back at the lander.

CNSA said scientific readings were also collected, using a lunar mineral spectrometer, a negative ion analyzer, a radon detector and a lunar structure detector. An Italian-built retro-reflector, installed on the top of the lander, served as a position control point that can be used for distance measurement. Data and telemetry were transmitted back to Earth via China’s Queqiao-2 relay satellite.

“After the collection was completed, the five-star red flag carried by the Chang’e-6 lander was successfully unfolded on the far side of the moon,” CNSA said. “This is the first time that China has independently and dynamically displayed the national flag on the far side of the moon, The flag is made of new composite materials and special technology.”

Here's a taste of the sampling action from the past couple of days, since the Chang'e-6 landing late on June 1 UTC. pic.twitter.com/jw2DlPToVf

— Andrew Jones (@AJ_FI) June 4, 2024

The space agency said the Chang’e-6 ascent module lifted off at 7:38 a.m. June 4 Beijing time (11:38 p.m. GMT June 3) and fired its engine for about six minutes to reach lunar orbit. After the ascent module’s rendezvous with the orbiter and the transfer of the samples, the orbiter and the re-entry capsule will continue to circle the moon, “waiting for the right time to return for the lunar-to-Earth transfer,” CNSA said. The flight plan follows the model that was set in 2020 when Chang’e-5 brought back samples from the moon’s Earth-facing side.

The findings from Chang’e-6 could provide new insights about the moon’s south polar region. That area is of particular interest because it’s thought to contain water ice reserves that could support lunar settlement. NASA is targeting the south polar region for its upcoming VIPER rover mission — and for a crewed lunar landing that’s currently scheduled for 2026. China’s space program has its own ambitions for increased lunar exploration — including another robotic mission planned for 2026, known as Chang’e-7, and a crewed landing that it’s aiming to accomplish by 2030.

The lunar surface has been a popular destination for robotic probes over the past year or so. The successful missions include India’s Chandrayaan-3, Japan’s SLIM and Intuitive Machines’ Odysseus. Russia’s Luna 25, iSpace’s Hakuto-R and Astrobotic’s Peregrine were among the not-so-successful missions.

The post Chinese Probe Collects Moon Samples and Heads for Earth appeared first on Universe Today.

The Artemis Program represents NASA’s effort to return to the Moon. One of the goals of the project is to set up long-term exploration of the Earth’s only natural satellite. This will need much bulkier equipment than what the Apollo astronauts carried though, and this equipment needs to be transported to the Moon’s surface. Blue Origin and SpaceX, contracted by NASA to provide human landing systems, have begun developing vehicles that can safely deliver this equipment from space to the Moon’s surface.

The Artemis program is far more ambitious than Apollo. The goal is not simply to land more humans on the moon, but to conduct scientific research, build a space station in lunar orbit, and lay a foundation for future expeditions to Mars. Artemis III, the first phase in which humans will land on the Moon, is currently expected to launch at a date no earlier than September 2026. NASA have contracted Blue Origin and SpaceX to build lander craft for Artemis III, and all future Artemis missions. The lander will dock with the lunar Gateway, bring the astronauts safely to the surface of the Moon, and then bring them back into orbit, where they will return to the Gateway station. But future Artemis missions will have much more demanding requirements, and involve much longer stays on the Moon. This will require a lot of heavy equipment that needs to be delivered from the Earth to the Moon.

“It’s essential that NASA has the capability to land not just astronauts, but large pieces of equipment, such as pressurized rovers, on the Moon for maximum return on science and exploration activities,” says Lisa Watson-Morgan, Human Landing System Program Manager at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. “Beginning this work now allows SpaceX and Blue Origin to leverage their respective human lander designs to provide cargo variants that NASA will need in the future.”

Since the vehicles that can fill this requirement do not exist yet, NASA has contracted SpaceX and Blue Origin to begin designing heavy cargo versions of their human lander craft. They must be able to cope with loads with a mass of 12 to 15 tonnes, in order to fulfill mission requirements, and must be ready to fly in time for Artemis VII. NASA does not expect a completely new design, however. They expect that the cargo landers will be modified versions of the human lander. The cargo version will need to include deployment mechanisms to unload the cargo, as well as payload interfaces. They will be uncrewed, though, which means that they will not need to include heavy and complicated life support systems.

The work is currently at an early stage. Both companies are working on preliminary designs, which will be submitted for review. Feedback from this process will inform further design work, and establish a baseline from which the final detailed designs can be created.

Artemis will allow NASA to explore the moon more completely than was ever possible with Apollo. Astronauts will spend far more time on the Moon’s surface, and learn how to live and work on another world. They will conduct research on previously unexplored regions of the Moon, and lay the critical groundwork to establishing a permanent base — a vital step on the road to building a settlement on Mars. It is a highly ambitious program, combining the efforts of space agencies around the world, private companies, and the academic sector. It requires massive investment and innovation, combining the SLS (Space Launch System) rocket, the Orion spacecraft, the human and cargo landing systems, next generation space suits, pressurized rovers, and the Gateway lunar orbital space station. If successful, Artemis will mark the beginning of humanity’s settlement of deep space.

The Artemis program is supported by Space Policy Directive 1, which changed US space policy to work on a program to return humans to the Moon. It is meant to be a US-led international mission, involving the private sector, and calls on NASA to “lead an innovative and sustainable program of exploration with commercial and international partners to enable human expansion across the Solar System and to bring back to Earth new knowledge and opportunities” The goal is to build a foundation for the eventual human exploration of Mars.

Artemis 1, which launched in November 2022, was a test flight of the SLS, which ended with the Orion spacecraft splashing down into the Pacific Ocean. Artemis 2, currently scheduled for September 2025, will fly a crewed Orion spacecraft in a Lunar flyby. Artemis 3 will land astronauts on the Moon, and is planned to launch in September 2026. Artemis 4 is hoped to launch in September 2028. It will deliver the first components of the Lunar Gateway station, and also land a crew of astronauts on the Moon. Artemis 5 and 6, scheduled for 2030 and 2031, will both dock an Orion spacecraft with the Lunar Gateway, add additional segments to the station, and land astronauts on the Moon.

Reference: https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/esdmd/artemis-campaign-development-division/human-landing-system-program/work-underway-on-large-cargo-landers-for-nasas-artemis-moon-missions/

The post NASA Wants Heavy Cargo Landers for the Moon appeared first on Universe Today.

https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/sciencesalon/mss437_Einat_Wilf_2024_06_04.mp3 Download MP3

Dr. Einat Wilf is a leading intellectual and original thinker on matters of foreign policy, economics, education, Israel, and the Jewish people. She was a member of the Israeli Parliament from 2010-2013 on behalf of the Labor and Independence parties. Dr. Wilf has a BA in Government and Fine Arts from Harvard University, an MBA from INSEAD in France (Institut Européen d’Administration des Affaires), and a PhD in Political Science from the University of Cambridge. Born and raised in Israel, Dr. Wilf served as an Intelligence Officer in the Israel Defense Forces. Dr. Wilf is also the author of six books including: My Israel, Our Generation, Back to Basics: How to Save Israeli Education (At No Additional Cost), It’s NOT the Electoral System, Stupid, Winning the War of Words, Telling Our Story (a collection of Wilf’s essays on Israel, Zionism and the path to peace,) and The War of Return: How Western Indulgence of the Palestinian Dream Has Obstructed the Path to Peace.

Shermer and Wilf discuss:

• Why Israel? Why the Jews? Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism
• Karim Khan, prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) accused Israeli and Hamas leaders of war crimes and called for a cease-fire by Israel in Gaza, particularly in Rafah
• Accusations of genocide, induced famine, and war crimes against Netanyahu
• Ireland, Spain and Norway say they will recognize a Palestinian state
• After 7 months of fighting, why has the IDF been unable to defeat Hamas?
• AP story outlining 4 options for Gaza:
  • Full scale military occupation
  • Lighter occupation with Palestinian administrators
  • Grand bargain: Reformed Palestinian Authority would govern Gaza with assistance of Arab and Muslim nations including Saudi Arabia that would normalize relations with Israel in return for a U.S. defense pact.
  • A deal with Hamas: release all of the hostages in return for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, including senior militants, as well as withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, a cease-fire, and reconstruction, leaving Hamas in control of Gaza.
• American student protests against Israel and for Palestine (and even Hamas!)
• Israel: what happened to their vaunted security apparatus, intelligence agency and military readiness?
• Zionism, Judaism, and Israel
• Palestine, Palestinians, and the Gaza strip
• Hamas, Hezbollah, and terrorism in the Middle East
• Progressive Left failure to denounce Hamas terrorists
• Why students & student groups are pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel
• The rise of anti-Semitism in recent years
• Proximate causes of anti-Semitism
• Ultimate causes of anti-Semitism
• The Abraham Accords
• The Two-State Solution.

If you enjoy the podcast, please show your support by making a $5 or $10 monthly donation.

Rock art along the Orinoco river in South America is made up of some of the largest etchings we know of and could date back 2000 years

MIT researchers developed a technique to combine robotics training data across domains, modalities, and tasks using generative AI models. They create a combined strategy from several different datasets that enables a robot to learn to perform new tasks in unseen environments.

MIT researchers developed a technique to combine robotics training data across domains, modalities, and tasks using generative AI models. They create a combined strategy from several different datasets that enables a robot to learn to perform new tasks in unseen environments.

Researchers call for strengthening existing planetary protection policies beyond the space surrounding Earth to include requirements for preserving the Lunar and Martian environments.

Researchers combine AI and mobile health to predict recovery from lumbar spine surgery.

Researchers conducting a study at a high-traffic intersection in a Jersey Shore town have found that the installation of a bike lane along the road approaching the convergence reduced driving speeds.

A new computational machine learning method developed by computational biologists can help researchers discover spatial patterns of gene expression in diseased tissue.

A new computational machine learning method developed by computational biologists can help researchers discover spatial patterns of gene expression in diseased tissue.

One underappreciated aspect of the current flood of exoplanet discoveries is the technical marvels that enable it. Scientists and engineers must capture and detect minute signals from stars and planets light years away. With the technologies of even a few decades ago, that would have been impossible – now it seems commonplace. However, there are still some technical hurdles to overcome before finding the “holy grail” of exoplanet hunting – an Earth analog. To help that discussion, a team of researchers led by Bertrand Mennesson at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory has released a paper detailing the current experimental and theoretical work around one of the most critical technical aspects of researching exoplanet atmospheres – starshades.

In particular, the paper discusses the technical hurdles of one of the most interesting upcoming space technology concepts. The Habitable Worlds Observatory (HWO) was called for as part of NASA’s recent decadal survey. While it is still early in its development cycle, the general outlines of how the HWO will work are evident, even if some technical details aren’t. And those general outlines point to the need for a starshade or coronagraph – or both.

The paper details the difference between a starshade and a coronagraph. By its definition, a starshade is a filter placed between the primary telescope mirror and the object it is observing. In contrast, a coronagraph is a filter placed between the primary mirror and the telescope’s sensor. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages regarding the data they allow the telescope to collect, but they can also be combined.

Starshades aren’t only useful for space telescopes, as Fraser discusses with Dr. Markus Janson in this video.

Several labs worldwide have been working on developing starshade and coronagraph technology. However, several nuances to the test set-ups affect their work’s applicability to the HWO project. Some tests are performed in a vacuum, while others are performed in air. Some tests are performed on monolith mirrored telescopes, while others are performed on segmented mirrors. Currently, the baseline operational mode of HWO is a space-based telescope, which, given current launch size constraints, also means it has to be segmented. So, only some tests performed to validate coronagraph and starshade technologies apply to the HWO use case.

For the relevant tests, there are three particular “key performance parameters” (KPPs), as the paper calls them, which can impact the technology’s viability. These are the image’s “raw” contrast, the “post-calibration” contrast, and the “off-axis throughput.” Each of these has thoroughly technical definitions described in the paper. But the first two can be thought of as how easy it is to see an exoplanet before (“raw”) and after (“post-calibration”) an image is run through a data processing algorithm. Off-axis throughput is the percentage of light from the planet through the starlight suppression system.

Each of these three KPPs represents a trade-off with the other two. Optimizing a starlight suppression system, such as a coronagraph or starshade, requires understanding and validating those design trade-offs. The paper mentions that the details of the HWO are still in flux, so it is impossible to determine what trade-offs must be made to have a fully functional system. Factors such as the number of exoearths the HWO is expected to observe, their orbital parameters, and how long the observatory will be allowed to capture data on any particular planetary system will all feed into the simulated trade-offs considered in the paper.

The Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope is another candidate for exoplanet hunting with an advanced starlight suppression system, as Fraser discusses in this video.

Most importantly, the paper’s authors stated they intended to inform the technical committees of the HWO project about these trade-offs and to help guide the selection of mission parameters that might fit in with the current (or near-term) state of technical development of one of the most critical technologies for the optimal operation of the system. HWO is still in the early planning stages and has no expected launch date. Work has started around defining the teams that will make the technical determinations to inform the selection of a starlight suppression system for the HWO. Dr. Mennesson, the paper’s lead author, also happens to be one of the co-chairs of one of the committees.

But for now, there is plenty of time to flesh out the HWO design and continue developing and testing different starlight suppression technologies. If the remarkable pace of exoplanet discovery is any indication, with a little more time and attention, the telescope development community will develop an optimally designed system to help find one of the most sought-after discoveries in modern science.

Learn More:
Mennesson et al. – Current laboratory performance of starlight suppression systems, and potential pathways to desired Habitable Worlds Observatory exoplanet science capabilities
UT – Astronomers Identify 164 Promising Targets for the Habitable Worlds Observatory
UT – The Habitable Worlds Observatory Could See Lunar and Solar ‘Exo-Eclipses’
UT – Planning is Underway for NASA’s Next Big Flagship Space Telescope

Lead Image:
Image of exoplanets

The post Suppressing Starlight: How to Find Other Earths appeared first on Universe Today.