Planetary Radio: Space Exploration, Astronomy and Science - NASA Goes for Star Trek Science: Bob Cassanova of the Institute for Advanced Concepts

Episode Date: July 25, 2005

NASA Goes for Star Trek Science: Bob Cassanova of the Institute for Advanced ConceptsLearn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

NASA goes for Star Trek science, this week on Planetary Radio. Hi everyone, welcome to Public Radio's travel show that takes you to the final frontier. I'm Matt Kaplan. Beam us up one last time, Scotty, so we can check in with Bob Casanova, Director of NASA's Institute for Advanced Concepts. Antimatter propulsion? A food replicator? NIAC has just funded 12 more revolutionary projects, and we'll talk about a few of them. Later, Bruce Betts will drop by with some concepts of his own for our new space trivia contest. And Emily is just around the corner right after we rip and read some interplanetary headlines.

Beginning with a Cosmos 1 solar sail update, the failure review board convened by the Mikheyev Rocket Design Bureau, manufacturer of the Volna launch vehicle, has determined that the first stage of the rocket shut down 17 seconds early due to a faulty turbo pump. The upper stages never separated, and an automatic self-destruct system aborted the flight seconds later. Oddly, some of the tracking data still looks like it could have come from the spacecraft. You can get the full details in an article by the project's director, Lou Friedman. It's on the web at planetary.org. As we go to broadcast, the countdown clock for Space Shuttle Discovery's return to flight has been reset,

with NASA hoping for liftoff on Tuesday, July 26, at about 10.30 in the morning Florida time. Also good to go for launch in mid-August is the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, Also good to go for launch in mid-August is the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, ready to deploy the highest resolution cameras yet as our exploration of the red planet continues. There's a nice article about MRO status at Planetary.org. As promised, here's Emily with a really trashy Q&A. I'll be right back with Bob Casanova. Hi, I'm Emily Lakdawalla with questions and answers. A listener asked, what happens to spacecraft after their missions end?

All spacecraft die eventually. Is space becoming jammed with dead spacecraft? The answer depends on whether you're more concerned about the Earth or the rest of the solar system. Only a few more than a hundred spacecraft have ever left the confines of the Earth's gravity. Some land on another planet like the Viking landers. Their final resting places may one day become monuments to the beginnings of the human space program. Spacecraft that orbit other planets, like Galileo and Lunar Prospector, are usually deliberately crashed so that they never pose a hazard to future spaceflight. A few, like the Voyagers, will leave the solar system entirely, traveling

into space so empty that they are likely never to pass close to any celestial object again. The rest of the fleet of dead spacecraft is in permanent orbit around the sun. There is so much empty space out there in the solar system that the likelihood of us encountering any of these objects again is vanishingly small. But the stuff in Earth orbit is a different story. Stay tuned to Planetary Radio to find out more. You hear lots of people complaining that too much R&D is focused on the near term, projects with quick profit potential. But you never hear anyone say that about NIAC. The NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts looks way out to the horizon of what may be technically possible.

looks way out to the horizon of what may be technically possible. The Institute's director, Bob Casanova, knows that some of the bleeding-edge projects will never get off the ground, but you can never tell what useful knowledge will emerge from failure. And who knows? Somebody might be on to a concept that will change the world. Bob talked with us last year. I invited him for a return visit as soon as I heard that NIAC had made 12 new Phase I awards. Well, it's good to be back. I always enjoy these conversations. As do I. I'm so thrilled with the whole concept of the NIAC that I'm sure our listeners will have no trouble telling that I'm pretty prejudiced about your mission. Talk about that mission. I mean, why did NASA set up the NIAC in 1998?

NIAC was created by NASA headquarters. This actually was a brainchild of NASA, and they decided to create an independent institute, independent in the sense that the institute would make its own decisions, set its own goals and missions, and, of course, NASA would fund it. The institute would operate independent of NASA by choosing its own concepts, managing those concepts, nurturing them, and trying to infuse them back into NASA once they are ready to join some NASA strategic plan.

And so the concepts that we're trying to inspire and fund are those that reach very far into the future, 10 to 40 years into the future. Now, whether or not something is really 10 to 40 years into the future is kind of a judgment call. It's more important that we look for concepts for which very little work has been done. We're looking for really new ideas that can inspire a whole new class of enabling technologies. Quite often, really advanced concepts will inspire technologies that can be used in the near term. And indeed, we can see that's what's happening with a number of the concepts that we have funded over the last seven years. And Bob, I know you've gone off of your speakerphone now, which will make it a little bit better for radio.

One of my favorite pages on the NIAC website starts with the heading, What is revolutionary? I guess you had to kind of define it for people who might be going after some of these grants. Right, we did. When NIAC first began, we had hoped that people would have their own at least productive definition of what is revolutionary, and so we allowed them that freedom to decide on their own what is revolutionary. But we quickly found out that there was a wide variation

in the interpretation of what is revolutionary. wide variation in the interpretation of what is revolutionary. We had people that considered things that are really science fiction as being revolutionary. In fact, a lot of science fiction would be revolutionary if it ever worked. Unfortunately, a lot of science fiction is really an imaginary pursuit of something that has very little chance of ever working. Now, we encourage people to think about revolutionary ideas and concepts for which the science may not be totally understood. However, there are certain basic things that we look for in the concepts. They at least must have some scientific credibility

and be useful and have potential impact. So we decided to create our own definition of what is revolutionary, and so we tried to learn from the geniuses over the last 400 or 500 years to understand not only how they operated, but the impact of their discovery. And we found out in many cases that the genius of their revolutionary thought was in the generalities and not the details. Albert Einstein, for instance, as well as artists like Picasso, for instance, as well as artists like Picasso. They had this unique ability to visualize something before they wrote an equation or put the paintbrush to the canvas. The proposals that we find the most attractive are not those for which people can write hundreds of pages.

And so realizing that we're looking for concepts rather than details, we have very succinct page count proposals that we will accept. Phase one is only 12 pages. Phase two, which is a down select from the phase ones, are limited to 25 pages. So we're forcing people to say things very concisely and in generalities rather than presenting us with lots of detail. Typically, we'll fund 12 to 15 Phase 1s out of anywhere from, say, 60 to 170 Phase 1 proposals. So Phase 1 is very selective. But once you receive a Phase 1, you have about a 30% chance. But is there something about the projects that you say, hey, this one deserves even further, even more development, that distinguishes a Phase 1 project that doesn't move on from

one that does move on into Phase 2? doesn't move on from one that does move on into Phase 2? Well, we're looking to, I guess that spark that allows the passage from Phase 1 to Phase 2 funding is a concept that seems to be well thought through. The team is a very strong team. It's still very scientifically credible. And it looks like it may have very significant impact on some future aeronautics or space mission. So it's not just the idea. Of course, we want the teams to be strong and seem to know what they're talking about, and so we look for that kind of a structure also.

We're taking our time getting to those Phase I awards that were just made, and I want to assure everyone that when we come back from the break, that's what we'll focus on. We will also provide the NIAC website address at planetary.org, right where you may be listening to this radio show, so

that you can check it out for yourself. And I guess, Bob, they can also find out there about deadlines and how they can submit. And can anybody go for a Phase I award? Anyone who is what we say is a U.S. entity. In other words, we're looking for small businesses and universities and even large businesses that are U.S. organizations. You don't have to have a Ph.D. after your name. You don't have to be at Goddard or Los Alamos or really have any prior background in coming up with something that might get funded.

Well, the people that we have funded obviously are qualified to do the study that they're proposing, but a Ph.D. is not necessary. A big organization backing you is certainly not necessary. We're making our decision based on the strength of the idea itself. We're talking with Bob Casanova. He is the director of NIAC, the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts. We're going to come back right after this break and hear about some, not all, but some of the 12 projects selected for funding in this newest Phase 1 round. And so we'll do that in just a moment.

This is Buzz Aldrin. When I walked on the moon, I knew it was just the beginning of humankind's great adventure in the solar system. That's why I'm a member of the Planetary Society, the world's largest space interest group. The Planetary Society is helping to explore Mars. We're tracking near-Earth asteroids and comets. We sponsor the search for life on other worlds, and we're building the first-ever solar sail. We didn't just build it.

We attempted to put that first solar sail in orbit, and we're going to try again. You can read about all our exciting projects and get the latest space exploration news in-depth at the Society's exciting and informative website, planetary.org. You can also preview our full-color magazine, The Planetary Report. It's just one of our many member benefits. Want to learn more? Call us at 1-877-PLANETS. That's toll-free, 1-877-752-6387.

The Planetary Society, exploring new worlds. Robert Casanova is director of the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts, NIAC. And we've been talking about the mission of that organization, which has been around since 1998, which has been around since 1998, awarding NASA dollars for the development of what it defines as revolutionary concepts, revolutionary ideas that may or may not result in something that could change the way we live in, explore, and make money off of space, and perhaps, who knows, maybe touching many other parts of human life. Bob, the first thing that I noticed looking at this list of 12 that you funded is a good representation of antimatter-related projects,

enough to make Captain Kirk proud, I think. Yeah, antimatter, of course, has been the stuff of which a lot of science fiction has been written. But antimatter really does exist. In fact, it's been known to exist for many decades. And over the years, we have funded a number of different concepts that relate to antimatter, some of which use antimatter to initiate nuclear reactions that can be used for propulsion or energy production. nuclear reactions that can be used for propulsion or energy production. Antimatter of various types, where the matter itself is very expensive to produce here on Earth.

It takes a lot of energy to produce antimatter and antiparticles. And, of course, you have to store it somehow. But what if you could actually harvest antimatter that is very likely to exist out in space. And so we funded a couple of different concepts for harvesting antimatter. And actually these are really stretching our imagination because we're not quite sure if it's feasible, not only physically feasible in terms of the physics involved, but also in practical terms of the physics involved, but also in practical terms of can you build something that really would trap these particles once you understand the physical principles behind it.

So you've got a couple that will collect the antimatter. You've got another one, though, from Gerald Smith, how he proposes to use this antimatter to run a space transport vehicle. Correct, correct. Let me go back a couple of years when we funded other concepts, too, related to antimatter. They could use antimatter. One is a sail where you aim the particles at a very lightweight sail, and the sail itself is made up of a very thin foil of uranium.

If you bombard this uranium with antimatter, you can initiate a nuclear reaction, and the momentum being released from that reaction actually will bump the sail through space, and it can be part of a propulsion system. The concept that we have funded this time is using positrons, positron annihilation, to provide energy for propulsion. Any concept using antimatter has the potential for producing a very large amount of energy, which you can then use to heat a propellant to very high temperatures, which in current can give you very high velocities of this propellant, which gives you a lot of thrust. This is the perfect example of something that is inspiring something,

say, 40 to 50 years into the future. Realistically speaking, antimatter production and antimatter storage is still a long way off. The only experiments that have been seriously performed using antimatter have been performed at the Fermilab and also at CERN in Europe. We better move right along, Bob, because there are at least two or three others here that I sure hope we will have time to talk about in this. Multimice, a network of interactive nuclear cryoprobes to explore ice sheets on Mars and Europa, both topics that come up quite often on this program.

Right. Yeah, this was a concept we found very intriguing because it would give us that capability of actually boring down into the ice that covers Europa and to make measurements, see what's there, understand the properties of the ice sheet, and to find out what's really going on below the surface. So it's a rather fascinating possibility. I think I said mini-mice. It's actually multi-mice. Any idea, how big would these little nuclear probes be? It sounds like they'd be quite small.

nuclear probes be? It sounds like they'd be quite small. They would be anywhere from maybe a few centimeters to maybe 10 centimeters in diameter. Wow. Relatively small. Well, actually, they could be larger than that. You could size it up to any scale, depending on what you'd like to do and how deep you'd like to go. How about this one from a Pamela Menges, the only woman that I see listed, this one from a Pamela Menges, the only woman that I see listed, artificial neural membrane flapping wing. Yeah, this is a concept that could allow us to create smart structures that would allow themselves to sort of morph into different shapes. And of course, once you have a material like that or a structure like that, you can do wonderful things. You can create a vehicle that would have a shape that could fly very effectively at low speeds, but also change its shape to become more streamlined and lower drag to fly at hypersonic speeds. It could even have a flapping motion. So this is rather intriguing, and we have funded

other concepts for flapping wings using what are called electroactive polymers. This is a different concept for a membrane that would allow a flapping wing or a structure to change its shape. Just one more, as we get very close to running out of time here that I have to mention, particularly after having mentioned Captain Kirk somewhat facetiously earlier in our conversation, so you probably know which one I'm going to mention. Customizable, reprogrammable food preparation, production, and invention system. In fact, the proposer himself, Eric Bonnebeau, compares it, lightly, to a Star Trek food replicator.

Yeah, we found this very intriguing because whenever astronauts are in space on a planetary surface, of course they have to eat something, and you would like to be able to not just take all your food with you and lots of freeze-dried food, for instance. In fact, I'm going hiking soon and will be eating freeze-dried food. Lucky you. And it's okay, but it's not all that tasty.

And wouldn't it be nice if you could start with some basic materials and say dial in some instructions that say, give me some food that tastes like a steak or tastes like a tomato. And so you would essentially just sort of dial your meal in. And rather than having all the food stuff stored, which, of course, takes up space, as well as the ability to maintain these foods without them biologically degrading. So there are certain advantages in being able to reconstitute food from various materials, varied food stocks. Bob, we haven't even had time to talk about half of the 12 Phase I projects funded,

but I will once again encourage people to go to the NIAC website. We will put that URL up on our site, planetary.org. People should look for the nice poster that you guys have done, which is on that What is Revolutionary page. Good luck in moving these projects along, and I hope that we can check back with you again the next time you pick out some revolutionary concepts. It's been my pleasure talking with you, and I hope the audience will enjoy it.

I look forward to the program. Robert Casanova is the director of the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts. He has a rather unique job. I think it's one that a country ought to be proud of. I'll be back with a country ought to be proud of. I'll be back with a segment we're pretty proud of. That's Bruce Betts, of course, with What's Up in our latest space trivia contest right after we hear from Emily once again with, back with Q&A. What happens to Earth-orbiting spacecraft after their missions end?

If humans are smart, any Earth-orbiting spacecraft that is close to death will use the last of its fuel to de-orbit itself and burn up in the atmosphere. But humans aren't always smart, and as a result of accidents, carelessness, and just plain lack of foresight, our sky is now cluttered with more than 100,000 objects. Only a few hundred of these objects are actually operational spacecraft. The rest are dead spacecraft, fragments of boosters, and trash dropped off of space stations by astronauts. Over time, collisions between objects will split the big chunks into very many smaller chunks, each of them hazardous. Only one serious collision has ever incapacitated

an active spacecraft, the French Cerise satellite in 1996. But as the amount of junk in space increases, the risk does too, and there is as yet no way to sweep the trash from our sky. Got a question about the universe? Send it to us at planetaryradio at planetary.org. And now here's Matt with more Planetary Radio. Boy, it's getting to be the exception, lately at least, that we do What's Up, sitting in the headquarters of the Planetary Society, our usual location. We've been outside so many times, but here we are. The important thing is that the Director of Projects for the Planetary Society, Dr. Bruce Betts, is here.

Bruce, welcome back. Thank you. It doesn't matter where we are. It matters who we are. Wherever you go, there you are. That, too. I don't think I'm getting more profound, so let's tell people.

Who's up? What's up? Right, right. Who's up? Okay, I'm not even going to try to answer that. What's up in the sky? Evening show. Check out Venus low in the west

after the sun sets. Brightest star-like object up there. Then take a look upwards from Venus By evening show, check out Venus low in the west. After the sun sets, brightest star-like object up there. Then take a look upwards from Venus. You'll see another really bright star-like object. That's Jupiter. If you have a small telescope, take a look at Jupiter. Even some steady binoculars, you can see moons off to each side of Jupiter looking like little pinpoints of light. And with a small telescope, you may even see cloud bands, maybe even the Great Red Spot.

Okay, I've got a human spaceflight update for you. You might say, why, since we're recording this before Space Shuttle launches. But hey, let's remember, there's International Space Station. We've had human spaceflight going on pretty constantly for a very long time now, and the astronaut and cosmonaut aboard the ISS did a cute little maneuver during this last week. They took the Russian spacecraft they keep up there from one part of the space station to another part, just for a joyride.

Okay, not just for a joyride. It was apparently to make spacewalks easier in the future, and so they moved it from one of the modules that they're using a lot to one of the modules that they use more for storage. So that went quite successfully and happily for John Phillips, the American astronaut and Sergei Krikalev, the Russian cosmonaut Krikalev, who by the way,

uh, in August will actually set the record for the longest time anyone has spent in space between his various different times in space at well over two years. Wow. Oh my god. Yeah, if you combine the different states. Tiring. That'd get you to Mars and back, wouldn't it? Maybe. Well, maybe.

If you take the short trip, three years if you take the long trip. But you don't get to stop and play around on Earth like he has in between. No. And now on to Random Space Fact! The oldest debris still on orbit is the second U.S. spacecraft, Vanguard I, second U.S. satellite to be more specific,

launched in 1958 on March the 17th. It worked for six years, but it's still orbiting up there. That doesn't seem right. It must have been a pretty high orbit. I didn't think they were capable of that. Okay. Then we like to invoke magic. They were.

It was a high orbit and a very energetic spacecraft that was very enthusiastic. And still is. Harnessed the power of enthusiasm. Still returning loads of good science, I'm sure. Not after the first six years. No. But it's still a cute little object in the night sky if you look at just the right time. On to the trivia contest. I asked you, who was the youngest person to fly aboard a space shuttle. Who was the youngest shuttle astronaut? How did we do?

It was a little bit of a tricky question. Yeah, a little bit. We actually got a lot of responses, but most of them said that it was Sally Ride. And Sally Ride was, I guess, a spring chicken at the time. She was 32 years old. But while she may have been the youngest American, she was not the youngest astronaut ever to fly on the space shuttle. And who was that, Matt? Let's see if I can get the name right.

Salman Abdelaziz Al Saud, who at the time was 28 years old when he flew, according to Craig Journet, our winner this week, on STS-51G. It was 1985. Was he a prince? Yes. The prince of a guy, I guess, at least. But I think he was also... You'd have to be to fly at 28. You'd have to be a prince of a guy. Yeah, I guess.

And in spite of that, was not the youngest person ever to fly. That was, I've got to find it here, German Titov, who flew on Vostok 1, who was 25. That's courtesy of Dominic Churley, who sent us all of the youngest people ever to fly, which was pretty interesting, too. Then we also, you know, who is it? Was it Torsten? Torsten Zimmer, another regular. He sent us a whole bunch of dog names.

Because I guess Leica, you know, even in dog years, I guess, was pretty young. But didn't fly on the shuttle, so weren't able to take that. I suppose, yeah, I don't think they bestowed astronaut status on the newts or salamanders or other critters that have flown on the space shuttle. You know, I've got to mention, it was Torsten actually didn't send us that. Torsten sent us a lovely poem about Sally Ride that we don't have time to read, unfortunately. It was Stephen Witte who sent all the dog names. Woof, woof. Woof. On to the trivia contest for this next time around. What is the third largest known asteroid? The third largest. The third largest. Yeah,

I just like to mix things up. People might know the first or second too easily. So what's the third largest known asteroid? Go to planetary.org slash radio to find out how to email us your answers and win the glorious Planetary Radio t-shirt. The only thing you've got to do is make sure you get us that entry by August 1st at 2 p.m. Pacific time, Monday the 1st at 2 p.m. Pacific, and your entry will be officially eligible for our random drawing among all the correct answers. So join up. Get your Planetary Radio t-shirt.

Do it. All right, everybody, go out there, look up at the night sky, and think about squid. Thank you, and good night. I don't like squid. Then think about how much you don't like them. Okay. He's Bruce Betts, the director of projects for the Planetary Society, and he is with us every week here on What's Up. Hey, Matt, catch this squid. Yeah, look. Join us as we return to

Saturn for the one-year anniversary of Cassini's arrival at the Great Ring Planet. We'll visit with Deputy Project Scientist Linda Spilker. By the way, we'll be talking with author, planetary scientist, and four-time shuttle astronaut Tom Jones in just a couple of weeks. Planetary Radio is produced by the Planetary Society in Pasadena, California. Write to us at planetaryradio at planetary.org. Have a great week, everyone.