A Catholic Citizen in America - Being Catholic, a faith I take seriously but not grimly, in America. A Catholic Citizen in America | Being Catholic, a faith I take seriously but not grimly, in America.

Pax Romana: Augustus to Nero

Posted on October 29, 2022 by Brian H. Gill

Hubert Rober's 'The Fire of Rome/Incendie à Rome.' (1785) via Wikipedia, used w/o permission. — “The Fire of Rome,” July 64 A.D., by Hubert Rober. (1785)

The Pax Romana had been in progress for eight decades on July 19, A.D. 64.

A fire started in a retail district near Rome’s Circus Maximus. It was a windy night.

The fire spread. Fast.

The Great Fire of Rome burned for six days before folks extinguished it.

Make that almost extinguished it. The fire got its second wind, roared through the city for another three days. Then it went out for good.

It destroyed three of the city’s 14 districts. Another seven needed repairs.

On the other hand, four districts hadn’t been scorched. Even so, I figure that most Roman residents didn’t feel that they were living in a golden age. Particularly since some arsonists claimed they’d been told to torch the city.

“…And no one dared to stop the mischief, because of incessant menaces from a number of persons who forbade the extinguishing of the flames, because again others openly hurled brands, and kept shouting that there was one who gave them authority, either seeking to plunder more freely, or obeying orders.“
(“The Annals,” 15.38; Tacitus (ca. A.D. 116) Translation based on Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb (1876) via Wikisource [emphasis mine])

I gather that there had been a half-dozen mainstream rumors about Rome’s big fire. One said it was an accident. The remaining rumors blamed Nero, but disagreed on why he started the fire, and gave him credit for blaming an already-unpopular minority.

Tacitus pointed out that Nero was out of town when the fire started, opened his own gardens to displaced Romans, and had shelters built for them. The rumors kept going anyway.

I figure maybe Tacitus was right about that: and that he wrote “Annals.”

On the other hand, starting in the 18th century, assorted academics have said that Tacitus didn’t write “Annals” — because he didn’t write like a proper historian, or because some Italian Renaissance humanist wrote “Annals.”

Me? I’d be mildly surprised if a first century Roman politician wrote as if he was an Enlightenment-era French historian. Make that very surprised.

I’ve talked about history and documentation, attitudes and assumptions, before.¹

Nero’s Public Relations Problem

Henryk Siemiradzki's 'Nero's Torches.' (1876) From Henryk Siemiradzki, via The National Museum in Kraków Digital Collection and Wikipedia, used w/o permission. — “Nero’s Torches,” by Henryk Siemiradzki. (1876)

Nero had a massive public relations problem on his hands after the fire.

Way too many Romans either assumed he’d started the fire or had hired arsonists; that he’d watched the blaze from a tower or sang and played a lyre on a private stage while the city burned, or both.

I figure many or most of the ‘Nero did it’ rumors sprouted from the well-fertilized soil of Roman politics and public angst. I’m also pretty sure that Romans weren’t any more likely to think straight after a major disaster than Americans are. Or anyone, for that matter.

After London’s big 1666 fire, for example, an official investigative committee decided that Catholics and other foreigners had started the fire. One of them was tried, convicted, and hung. In that order, remarkably enough.

Never mind that Robert Hubert hadn’t arrived in England until two days after the fire.

Then, a dozen years later, in the interest of national security, the proper authorities killed 22 folks before juries started wondering if being Catholic should be a capital offense.

Getting back to first century Rome and Nero’s public relations problem, he blamed a minority “hated for their abominations:” Christians.

“…Sed non ope humana, non largitionibus principis aut deum placamentis decedebat infamia, quin iussum incendium crederetur. ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat.…”
(“P. Corneli Taciti Annalivm Liber Ovintvs Decumvs/Annals,” 15.44; Tacitus (ca. A.D. 116) via thelatinlibrary.com [emphasis mine)

“…But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.…”
(“The Annals,” 15.44; Tacitus (ca. A.D. 116) Translation based on Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb (1876) via Wikisource [emphasis mine])

His solution made sense. From a political perspective, at any rate. Until he overdid it.

After the fire, decent Roman citizens had been doing the right thing: rebuilding their city; consulting the Sibylline Books; praying to Vulcanus, Ceres, Proserpina and Juno; holding sacred banquets and nightly vigils. (“Annals,” 15.43-44)

As for Christians, Tiberius saw their “mischievous superstition” as the sort of “hideous and shameful” aberration that kept slithering into Rome.²

“…Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. … an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.…”
(“The Annals,” 15.44; Tacitus (ca. A.D. 116) Translation based on Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb (1876) via Wikisource [emphasis mine])

Attitudes and Authority, Respect and Rules

Can’t say that I blame him.

Ideally, Tiberius would have set aside the beliefs and attitudes he’d grown up with: listened carefully to what Christians said, watched what they did, and considered the possibility that they might be right.

But, as I keep saying, we don’t live in an ideal world. So Tiberius classified Christians and Christianity with “all things hideous and shameful,” and recorded that Nero overdid his scapegoating of that much-hated minority. (“Annals,” 15.44, Tacitus (ca. A.D. 116))

Maybe Tiberius hadn’t had opportunity to notice Christian behavior.

We were, at that point, a minority in Rome: and a suspect one, at that.

Again, can’t say that I blame Tiberius. From his viewpoint, Christianity was a weird foreign cult about some troublemaker in a troublesome province.

Worse yet, the Christians wouldn’t even worship Roman gods. Refusal to worship a dead emperor made them look treasonous. From a post-Augustan Roman viewpoint.³

Correspondence we call the letters to Romans and Timothy were mostly about screwball notions we’re still dealing with. But both included reminders that authority matters, and that respect for secular authority comes with being a Christian.

“Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.
“Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.
(Romans 13:1–2)

“First of all, then, I ask that supplications, prayers, petitions, and thanksgivings be offered for everyone,
“for kings and for all in authority, that we may lead a quiet and tranquil life in all devotion and dignity.
“This is good and pleasing to God our savior,
“who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth.
(Timothy 2:1–3)

Well, respect for legitimate authority.

Everybody’s got responsibilities, including citizens and secular authorities. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2207-2243)

Ideally, the folks in charge would make and enforce rules that follow natural law: ethical principles woven into the fabric of reality. (Catechism, 1905-1912, 1950-1960, 2235-2237)

And folks like me should follow the rules and do what the authorities say. (Catechism, 2238-2243)

Obedience, Yes; Blind Obedience, No

Here’s where it gets tricky.

Respect for authority is a good idea. Obedience is a good idea. That’s reasoned obedience. Blind obedience is a bad idea and I shouldn’t do it. No emperor, king, president or boss is above natural law. (Catechism, 1900-1903, 2242-2243)

Sometimes the folks in charge give orders that defy natural law. When that happens, the right thing to do may be to not follow orders, or to break a law. (Catechism, 2242-2243)

Like I said: that’s where it gets tricky.

Even if the rules are wrong — if they go against natural law — that doesn’t mean I can do whatever I like.

Bad laws and daft-or-worse leaders don’t make bad behavior okay.

I’ve said this before.

Armed resistance to an oppressive authority is an option. But only if that’s the only option left. And success is likely. And — no, really — if there is no other option. (Catechism, 2243)

And that brings me to the Roman patriots who thought they were saving the Republic.

The Roman Republic: Wars, Revolts and Pesky Ethics

Jacques-Louis David's 'Oath of the Horatii.' (1784) From Jacques-Louis David, via Wikimedia Commons, used w/o permission. — “Oath of the Horatii” — a Roman legend, as imagined by Jacques-Louis David. (1784))

Rome’s Senate predates the Roman Republic by at least two centuries.

Sorting out legend, myth and history from Rome’s origin stories isn’t what I’m doing this week, so I’ll boil the seven centuries before Caesar down to a couple hundred words.

Rome’s last king assassinated his way to first place, and committed many atrocities. Then the virtuous Romans decided they’d had enough of kings and formed the Roman Republic. According to the Republic’s folklore.

The Republic’s government had three branches: legislative, executive and judicial. If that sounds familiar, it should. My country’s founders modeled their new government on Rome’s, with improvements.

The Republic changed, a lot, during the five centuries after they threw out their last king.

Plebes/plebians got more political and economic clout. Not on a par with patricians, but enough to make “plebian nobility” a real, if paradoxical, phrase.

I think letting folks other than the top five percent have a say is a good idea, but I’m well into the other 95 percent: so I would.

Maybe the Punic Wars (264 to 146 B.C.) and Servile Wars (135 to 71 B. C.) felt like threats to the Republic at the time, but I think was their main problem was Rome’s upper crust in general and the Senate in particular.

Picking up new populations of slaves after each war didn’t help, either.

This isn’t quite the same as 18th and 19th notions regarding “decadence,” and that’s another topic.

The Senate had an admirable system of checks and balances which, along with their code of ethics, would have helped Senators deal with the occasional bad apple in their ranks.⁴

Would have, that is, if Senators hadn’t kept finding ways around those pesky ethical standards.

Saving the Republic — From the Pax Romana

Jean-Léon Gérôme's 'The Death of Caesar.' (ca. 1859-1867) via Wikipedia, used w/o permission. — “The Death of Caesar” in the Theatre of Pompey, as imagined by Jean-Léon Gérôme. (ca. 1859-1867)

But after five centuries of high ideals and dirty tricks, a hotshot general and politician got himself appointed dictator — the title didn’t mean then what the epithet does now — and started sorting out Republican Rome’s latest mess.

His attempted reforms were bad enough.

I suspect what really upset Rome’s defenders of the status quo was that Gaius Julius Caesar was making his reforms work.

And so, quite possibly with the best interests of the Republic at heart, they dry gulched Julius Caesar at a meeting in what we’d call Pompey’s convention center.

They saved the Republic, all right.

Instead of Julius Caesar’s scary reforms, the Roman Republic got three bosses: tresviri rei publicae constituendae, the triumvirate for organizing the republic.

The Second Triumvirate split the Republic’s territory three ways. Each ruled his own share, while trying to take over the other two parts.

That led to what I gather is now called the War of Actium, although I prefer the older “Last War of the Roman Republic” or “Final War of the Roman Republic.” When the dust settled, Gaius Octavius was the surviving member of the Second Triumvirate.

Gaius Octavius let the Roman Senate look like they were still in charge, and got himself named Augustus. Roman naming conventions are — complicated.

Augustus also launched the Roman imperial cult by deifying Julius Caesar, became the Roman Empire’s first emperor, and established Pax Romana.⁵

Pax Romana, Emperors and Reputations

Thomas Cole's 'The Consummation of Empire.' (1836) From Thomas Cole, via New York Historical Society and Wikimedia Commons, used w/o permission. — “The Consummation of Empire” from Thomas Cole’s “The Course of Empire” series. (1836)

I figure Augustus folklore from the last two millennia of says as much about his successful public relations work as it does of what sort of person he was. That said, Augustus was a remarkable leader.

Once he’d survived the Last War of the Roman Republic, Augustus continued Julius Caesar’s unsettling willingness to accommodate the lower classes.

But he also set up the Principate, which let the Senate pretend they were still living in the good old days of the Republic.

I’m not sure when folks started calling time from the 27 B.C. to A. D. 180, the start of the Roman Principate to the death of Marcus Aurelius, the Pax Romana.

Another version of when the Pax Romana happened is from the Last War of the Roman Republic’s end in 31 B. C. to A. D. 250. I’m not sure why someone picked 250 as that termination date. Maybe because the Plague of Cyprian was in progress then.

And I’m not sure when Seneca the Younger’s “Romanae pacis” became “Pax Romana.”

“Romanae pacis” is from his “De Clementia,” “Of Clemency.” It’s a sort of ‘how to be an emperor’ book for Nero.⁶

“…Rege incolumi mens omnibus una;
amisso rupere fidem.
“Hic casus Romanae pacis exitium erit, hic tanti fortunam populi in ruinas aget; tam diu ab isto periculo aberit hic populus, quam diu sciet ferre frenos, quos si quando abruperit vel aliquo casu discussos reponi sibi passus non erit, haec unitas et hic maximi imperii contextus in partes multas dissiliet, idemque huic urbi finis dominandi erit, qui parendi fuerit. Ideo principes regesque et quocumque alio nomine sunt tutores status publici non est mirum amari ultra privatas etiam necessitudines; nam si sanis hominibus publica privatis potiora sunt, sequitur, ut is quoque carior sit, in quem se res publica convertit. Olim enim ita se induit rei publicae Caesar, ut seduci alterum non posset sine utriusque pernicie; nam et illi viribus opus est et huic capite….”

“…Bees have but one mind, till their king doth die,
But when he dies, disorderly they fly.
“Such a misfortune will be the end of the peace of Rome, it will wreck the prosperity of this great people; the nation will be free from this danger as long as it knows how to endure the reins: should it ever break them, or refuse to have them replaced if they were to fall off by accident, then this mighty whole, this complex fabric of government will fly asunder into many fragments, and the last day of Rome’s empire will be that upon which it forgets how to obey. For this reason we need not wonder that princes, kings, and all other protectors of a state, whatever their titles may be, should be loved beyond the circle of their immediate relatives; for since right-thinking men prefer the interests of the state to their own, it follows that he who bears the burden of state affairs must be dearer to them than their own friends. Indeed, the emperor long ago identified himself so thoroughly with the state, that neither of them could be separated without injury to both, because the one requires power, while the other requires a head….”
(“De Clementia,” IV; L. Annaei Senecae ad Neronem Caesarem; Lucius Annaeus Seneca (55-56 AD) via Wikisource
“Of Clemency,” IV; Addressed to Nero Caesar; Lucius Annaeus Seneca; translated by Aubrey Stewart (1900) via Wikisource [emphasis mine])

Remembering Nero, Caligula and “True Detective” Magazine

I talked about history and viewpoints a few months back:

“History, Viewpoints, Narratives and Ancient Rome” (July 2, 2022)
- Historical Narratives

Briefly, we see the past through our own eyes: and through the eyes of folks who wrote about goings-on in their day, and in their past.

Sometimes it’s hard to tell what’s fact, what’s opinion, and what’s either wishful thinking or politically-motivated screed.

Take this, from Suetonius’ “The Life of Caligula,” for example:

“…He had planned, besides, to rebuild the palace of Polycrates at Samos, to finish the temple of Didymaean Apollo at Ephesus, to found a city high up in the Alps, but, above all, to dig a canal through the Isthmus in Greece, and he had already sent a chief centurion to survey the work.
“So much for Caligula as emperor; we must now tell of his career as a monster….”
(“The Lives of the Twelve Caesars,” The Life of Caligula; C. Suetonius Tranquillus (ca. 121) translation by J. C. Rolfe for Loeb Classical Library (1913‑1914))

Someone said Suentonius’ history was “racy,” and I wouldn’t argue against that. I’m not, however, sure how much of his “The Life of Caligula” is based on rumor, and whether or not it was a second-century analog to early “True Detective” issues.⁷

I very strongly suspect we’re stuck with studying Imperial Roman history with documents that are as strictly objective as America’s current political campaign commercials.

Maybe Caligula and Nero, the third and fifth Roman Emperors after Augustus, really were the out-of-control lunatics described in surviving records.

I’m not about to try rehabilitating either of those two. But I suspect that their popularity with the lower classes — didn’t encourage praise from folks writing for Rome’s better sort.

And I think that those two famously infamous emperors being in the Pax Romana’s first century speaks volumes about the late Roman Republic’s reputation.

Maybe they weren’t good emperors. But at least conditions during their administration were better than during the Republic?

Then again, maybe not.

Either way, the Augustine Pax Romana arguably qualifies as a golden age. And, seen through the rose-colored glasses of nostalgia, set a high bar for current leaders. Which may not be a bad thing.

Looking back, from my viewpoint:

“History, Viewpoints, Narratives and Ancient Rome“
(July 2, 2022)
“A Roman Founding Myth and Aeneas, Action Hero“
(May 28, 2022)
“Learning From History: It’s an Option“
(May 7, 2022)
“Sifting Through the Ash Heap of History“
(October 30, 2021)
“The Athenian Golden Age: Pericles, Aspasia, and All That“
(October 9, 2021)

¹ Making sense of history:

Wikipedia
“The great fire of Rome: life and death in the ancient city,” Witness to ancient history, Joseph J. Walsh, Johns Hopkins University Press (2019)
Review by George W. Houston, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Circus Maximus
Rome Reborn, Institute for Advanced Tech[n]ology in the Humanities, University of Virginia (2008)
History, as I see it
- “Marlowe’s ‘Dr. Faustus,’ Freedom, Censorship and Speculation” (September 10, 2022)
  - Periodization and Impractical-But-Fun Speculation
- “History, Viewpoints, Narratives and Ancient Rome” (July 2, 2022)
- “The Athenian Golden Age: Pericles, Aspasia, and All That” (October 9, 2021)
  - Fragments
- “Rereading Christopher Marlowe’s ‘Doctor Faustus’” (January 6, 2021)
  - Marlowe Didn’t Write Shakespeare — Marlowe IS Shakespeare!!!

² Reacting to disasters:

Wikipedia
Complete pack of 52 playing-cards depicting the Popish Plot, The British Museum
Attitudes, assumptions, and ancient Rome
- “St. Jude, Judas Thaddaeus: Patron Saint of Desperate Cases” (August 13, 2022)
  - “A Class Hated for Their Abominations”
- “History, Viewpoints, Narratives and Ancient Rome” (July 2, 2022)

³ Christians and a cult:

Wikipedia
- Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire
  - Neronian persecution
- Roman imperial cult
(Not) fitting in, from my perspective
- “St. Jude, Judas Thaddaeus: Patron Saint of Desperate Cases” (August 13, 2022)
  - Roman Law, Dead Emperors and Beliefs

⁴ History, society and ideas (slavery, by the way, is a bad idea and we shouldn’t do it. (Catechism, 2414)):

Wikipedia
- Conflict of the Orders
- Constitution of the Roman Republic
- Decadence
- Declinism
- Lucius Tarquinius Superbus
- Patrician (ancient Rome)
- Plebians
- Punic Wars 264 – 146 B.C.
- Roman Republic
- Senate of the Roman Kingdom
- Senate of the Roman Republic
- Servile Wars 135 – 71 B.C.
- Slavery in ancient Rome
- Mr. Giotto’s online= textbook ancient Rome
  - The Beginnings of Rome — Rome under the Monarchy
  - Ancient Rome — the Early Republic and Expansion
- “The Roman Senate as Precursor of the U.S. Senate“
  Jennifer Davis, Law Librarians of Congress (September 30, 2020)
- “The Constitution of the Roman Republic: A Political Economy Perspective“
  Eric Posner (John M. Olin, Program in Law and Economics Working Paper No. 540 (2010))
- Tarquinius Superbus
  Chaucer Name Dictionary, Jacqueline de Weever (1988, 1996) via Columbia University

⁵ Roman history, mostly:

Wikipedia
Names, Roman; OxfordReference.com; via Works — Scholarship, Research, & Creative Expression at Swarthmore College
- “Conventions of Naming in Cicero,” J. N. Adams, Classical Quarterly, new ser., 28 (1978)
- “The Latin Cognomina,” Iiro Kajanto, Societas Scientiarum Fennica. Helsinki, Finland, (1965)
- “What’s in a Name? A Survey of Roman Onomastic Practice from c. 700 B.C. to
  A.D. 700,” Benet Salway, Journal of Roman Studies 84 (1994) via UCL Discovery, University College London
“What’s in a Name? A Survey of Roman Onomastic Practice from c. 700 B.C. to A.D. 700,” Benet Salway, Journal of Roman Studies 84 (1994)

⁶ The Principate, Pax Romana and a plague:

Wikipedia

⁷ Rome, remembered:

Wikipedia
“Lives of the Twelve Caesars (caption)“
Ford Maddox Ford (1540) from The Otto F. Ege Collection Original Leaves from Famous Books, Special Collections, Kelvin Smith Library Manuscript Collections, Case Western Reserve University
Roman historians and their depiction of Caligula (translated works).
Caligula – Roman Emperor Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus — Digital Archive — Sam Donath, Rod Library, University of Northern Iowa
“The Lives of the Twelve Caesars,” The Life of Caligula; C. Suetonius Tranquillus (ca. 121) translation by J. C. Rolfe for Loeb Classical Library (1913‑1914) via Bill Thayer’s Web Site, The University of Chicago

Posted in Golden Ages, Series | Tagged authority, history, politics | 5 Comments

DART: Trick Shot by OpNav, and a Successful Test

Posted on October 22, 2022 by Brian H. Gill

Image from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope: Asteroid Dimorphos, 285 hours after intentional impact by DART spacecraft. — Asteroid Dimorphos and comet-like dust trail, 28 hours after DART spacecraft impact on September 26, 2022. (Image taken October 8. 2022) Image from NASA/ESA/STScI/Hubble, used w/o permission

On September 26, 2022, the NASA/APL DART mission changed the orbit of an asteroid: Dimorphos, a satellite of 65803 Didymos.

“NASA Confirms DART Mission Impact Changed Asteroid’s Motion in Space“
Josh Handal, Justyna Surowiec; press release; NASA, Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory (October 11, 2022)
…Prior to DART’s impact, it took Dimorphos 11 hours and 55 minutes to orbit its larger parent asteroid, Didymos. … the investigation team has confirmed the spacecraft’s impact altered Dimorphos’ orbit around Didymos by 32 minutes, shortening the 11 hour and 55-minute orbit to 11 hours and 23 minutes. This measurement has a margin of uncertainty of approximately plus or minus 2 minutes.
“Before its encounter, NASA had defined a minimum successful orbit period change of Dimorphos as change of 73 seconds or more. This early data show DART surpassed this minimum benchmark by more than 25 times.…”
[emphasis mine]

Dimporphos and Didymos weren’t going to hit Earth before, and they aren’t going to now.

Not unless gravitational interactions with the tens of thousands of other near-Earth objects we’ve spotted so far change their orbit around the Sun. Which could happen, and is why developing planetary defense tech makes sense.

Transferring momentum from one object to another is simple. We do it every time we play pool or billiards.

I could try talking what happens by using phrases like vector quantities and the product of the mass and velocity of an object.

But I won’t.

Partly because there’s an awful lot of math involved. And partly because I figure you get what I mean from the “pool or billiards” reference.

Math matters, though. Particularly when figuring out how much the DART spacecraft might shift that asteroid’s orbit.¹ There’s more to it than mass, velocity and vector. And that’s another topic.

So instead, I’ll take a look at how DART managed to hit an asteroid nearly head-on.

DART: Improving on Deep Impact’s Smart Impactor

This wasn’t the first time NASA crashed a spacecraft on purpose.

Back on July 4, 2005, Deep Impact’s “Smart Impactor” hit comet Tempel 1.

That mission’s flyby spacecraft’s ‘eye’ was an MRI (Medium Resolution Imager). It had spotted the comet 69 days earlier.

The Smart Impactor had an ITS (Impactor Targeting Sensor). The ITS was just like the MRI, but without a filter wheel.

Tempel 1 was close to Earth when the Deep Impact spacecraft reached Tempel 1, but that’s “close” on a cosmic scale. A signal would have taken seven and a half minutes to travel from the spacecraft to Earth and back again.

That’s not nearly fast enough for controlling the impactor with a joystick in mission control. So the Deep Impact flyby and impactor spacecraft did their own last-minute course corrections.

Spotting a comet or asteroid against a starry backdrop is anything but simple. Partly because we didn’t know what comet Tempel 1 looked like.

And so, folks at mission control couldn’t tell the Deep Impact spacecraft exactly what to look for. Comet nuclei can be round or shaped like lumpy potatoes. One even looked a bit like a rubber duck.

Folks planning the DART mission had a similar problem. When the DART spacecraft reached Didymos and Dimorphos, its moon, they were about 11,000,000 kilometers, 7,000,000 miles, from Earth.²

Size and Distance Comparisons

NASA/Johns Hopkins APL's illustration, comparing sizes of the two asteroids in the Didymos system relative to objects on Earth. (2022) — NASA/APL’s size comparison chart: Didymos, Dimorphos and familiar landmarks. (2022)

That’s close on an astronomical scale. But scientists figured Didymos was about 780 meters, 2,560 feet across and Dimorphos roughly 170 meters, 560 feet, across.

Or was, before the impact. And apparently Dimorphos was a tad smaller than expected. Around 525 feet across.

Either way, if I scaled the distance to Dimorphos, 7,000,000 miles, down to the length of an American football field, the asteroid would be about one five-thousandth of an inch across. A typical human hair is maybe 75 μm across. That’s around two thousandths of an inch.

You’re not going to see Didymos and Dimorphos without a good-sized telescope. Something bigger than the eight-inch scopes many amateur astronomers use, anyway.³

Magnitude, Observations and a Cubesat

And now, getting technical.

For earthbound observers, Didymos and Dimorphos was a 14th magnitude object when DART hit the asteroid’s moon.

That’s “object,” singular. Even with larger telescopes, the binary asteroid looks like a single speck of light.

That’d make measuring the pair’s orbital period pretty much impossible. Unless they eclipsed each other from Earth’s viewpoint. Which they do. At the moment, that is.

And that’s no coincidence. Narrowing possible targets down to something that was just right for the DART mission ended with a list of one.

Each time Didymos and Dimorphos eclipse each other, the Didymos-Dimorphos blob in earthbound telescopes gets a little dimmer. Timing the interval between dimmings told scientists what their orbital period was before and after the impact.

Up-close pictures of the Didymos-Dimorphos system, post-impact, came from LICIACube, ASI’s cubesat. DART released LICIACube 15 days before it aimed itself at Dimprphos.⁴

Autonomous Optical Navigation and Acronyms

NASA/Johns Hopkins APL/Ed Whitman's photo. The DART spacecraft's DRACO instrument, at Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory. (last updated August 13, 2021) — The only instrument on DART: the Didymos Reconnaissance and Asteroid Camera for Optical navigation. (2021)

Okay! So: how hard would it be, really, to run DART into Dimorphos by guiding it in from mission control, back on Earth?

Well-nigh impossible, as it turns out.

Again, Dimorphos is less than 170 meters, 560 feet, across. That’s big, at least compared to — say — a vending machine or refrigerator.

But Didymos-Dimorphos was roughly 11,000,000 kilometers, 7,000,000 miles, from Earth when DART reached it.

Mission control knew about where DART and the asteroids were.

But using traditional radiometric (Doppler and range) tracking data, they could narrow the asteroid’s position down to being somewhere in a zone 25 kilometers across.

Even back when they figured that Dimorphos was 180 meters across, that wasn’t nearly accurate enough.

So the folks at a remarkable number of places helped design something that’s smarter than Deep Impact’s “Smart Impactor.”

They came up with DRACO: the Didymos Reconnaissance and Asteroid Camera for OpNav.⁵

Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART)
NASA
“…It [the DART spacecraft] will carry a single instrument, the Didymos Reconnaissance and Asteroid Camera for OpNav (DRACO), which will provide images for the Small-body Maneuvering Autonomous Real-Time Navigation (SMARTNav) algorithm to be used for guidance, navigation, and control operations in targeting the asteroid, assisted by a star tracker and 5 Sun sensors….”

OPNAVs and a Flow Chart

All OPNAVs are not created equal.

OPNAV, for example, is the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations.

OPNav is Proprietary Software Platform Powered by Skai/Orca Pacific.

And OpNav is Joseph E. Riedel et al’s optical navigation system for the Altair lunar lander.

DART’s DRACO OpNav is an optical navigation system, too. Or maybe software. I didn’t find a solid definition for that particular acronym. Frustrating.

Finally, OpNAV is the Orion Optical Navigation Image Processing Software.

That last, OpNAV, Data and Image Processing Reference Number MSC-26456-1, runs on a Linux operating system and is for “U.S. Release Only.”

From which I gather that optical navigation systems, some of them at least, are sensitive technology. Which is, I suppose, understandable. Although I’d have preferred finding more detail on just how the DART OpNav works.

On the ‘up’ side, I found an image processing flow chart for Deep-Space Autonomous Optical Navigation in a paper by Shuang Li, Ruikun Lu, Liu Zhang and Yuming Peng.⁶

My number-one daughter pointed out that, although the text refers to “four steps” in the diagram, there are five or six. Seven or eight, counting “Grey image” and “Nav measurement (Line-of-sight).”

She’s got a point. But I suspect that we’re supposed to see “Pseud0-edges removal,” “Least squares based fitting” and Levenberg-Marquardt based ellipse fitting” as one step.

Still, I think this is another example of why “technical writer” and “science writer” are occupational titles. Or should be. And that’s yet another topic.

Reminiscing, B Movies — and a Really Big Deal

NASA/Johns Hopkins APL/Ed Whitman's photo. The DART spacecraft, at Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory. (last updated August 13, 2021) — Preparing the DART spacecraft for launch at Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory. (2021)

I have a very active imagination.

And during my teens, I watched a whole mess of movies with titles like “Warning from Space” and “The Green Slime.”

I had the house to myself, apart from two cats, weekdays from about 3:30 p.m. to 4:45 or so, a local television station had (cheap) afternoon movies; and I’m drifting off-topic.

The point is that my visual memory is fairly well-stocked with video clips of spaceships approaching Asteroid Flora, planets with improbable names, and space aliens who were less than ecstatic about encountering humans.

Echoes from B Movie Science Fiction and an Asteroid Deflection Method that Works

So, as I watched Didymos slide past the lower left corner of DART’s video feed, and Dimorphos grew from a dot to a blob, and then an oval gravel pile — my imagination dropped a wildly-unlikely scenario on my mind’s front desk. Metaphorically speaking.

What if — as DART got close enough to see features on Dimorphos — we noticed, lying on the asteroid’s rocky surface, a few clusters of spheres and cylinders. One of which started moving away from the projected impact point.

By that time, no message from mission control would stop a probe from Earth from crashing into someone’s — research station? Communications relay? Equivalent of Mars 2020’s sample caches?⁷

That didn’t happen, of course.

I’m not convinced that DART hitting an installation set up by folks from another world is impossible. But I think the odds of such an incident happening are — well, are slim to virtually none.

Echoes from my adolescent imagination aside, we’ve shown that we can change an asteroid’s orbit. Granted, Dimorphos is a small asteroid. But the DART mission has shown that the kinetic impact asteroid deflection method works.

This is, by any reasonable standard, a big deal.

I’ve talked about that, and almost-related topics, before:

“DART Mission, Successful Planetary Defense Test; What’s Next“
(October 1, 2022)
“Space Aliens: Perceptions, Assumptions“
(April 10, 2021)
“My Top 10 Science News Stories For 2020“
(December 29, 2020)
“Planet 9, Maybe; Nibiru, No“
(September 29, 2017)
“Near-Earth Asteroids“
(November 4, 2016)

¹ Mass, motion and a mission:

Wikipedia
NASA
- 65803 Didymos
- Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) Mission
- Planetary Defense Coordination Office
- Press releases
  - “NASA Confirms DART Mission Impact Changed Asteroid’s Motion in Space“
    Josh Handal, Justyna Surowiec; press release (October 11, 2022; updated October 12, 2022)
  - “NASA’s DART Mission Post-Asteroid-Impact News Briefing,” YouTube video (32:05) (September 26, 2022)
  - The Orbit of Didymos image (JPL) (November 17, 2021)

² Astronautical trick shots:

Wikipedia
- 65803 Didymos
- 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko (the ‘rubber duck’ comet)
- Deep Impact (spacecraft)
- Hair’s breadth
- Micrometre (Micron, μm)
- Tempel 1
- Dimorphos
NASA
- Deep Impact Mission
  - 9P/Tempel 1
  - “The nucleus of Comet 9P/Tempel 1: Shape and geology from two flybys;” P. Thomas, M. A’Hearn, M. J. S. Belton, D. Brownlee, B. Carcich, B. Hermalyn, K. Klaasen, S. Sackett, P. H. Schultz, , J. Veverka, , S. Bhaskaran, D. Bodewits, S. Chesley, , B. Clark, , T. Farnham, O. Groussin, A. Harris, J. Kissel, J.-Y. Li, K. Meech, J. Melosh, A. Quick, J. Richardson, J. Sunshine, D. Wellnitz; Icarus (available online March 7, 2012; posted to NASA Technical Reports Server 2014)
  - Deep Impact Autonomous Navigation: The Trials of Targeting the Unknown;” Daniel G. Kubitschek, Nickolaos Mastrodemos, Robert A. Werner, Brian M. Kennedy, Stephen P. Synnott, George W. Null, Shyam Bhaskaran, Joseph E. Riedel, Andrew T. Vaughan; Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology; presented at 29th AAS (American Astronautical Society, Rocky Mountain Section) Guidance and Control Conference (February 4-8, 2006; posted online 2014)
  - “Deep Impact Comet Encounter,” press kit (June 2005)
  - The Comet (November 18, 2004)
“NASA’s DART Mission Successfully Impacts Asteroid“
Emily Lakdawalla, Sky & Telescope (September 27, 2022)

³ Measurements and comparisons:

Wikipedia
- 65803 Didymos
- Hair’s breadth
- Micrometre (Micron, μm)
- Dimorphos
DART: Double Asteroid Redirection Test, Mission Overview, Didymos—The Ideal Target for DART’s Mission
Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory
“The Science Behind NASA’s First Attempt at Redirecting an Asteroid“
Lyle Tavernier, Teachable moments, News, JPL/NASA (October 20, 2022)
“NASA’s DART Mission Successfully Impacts Asteroid“
Emily Lakdawalla, Sky & Telescope (September 27, 2022)

⁴ More measurements and picking a target:

Wikipedia
- Apparent magnitude
- CubeSat
- Italian Space Agency (ASI)
- LICIACube
- Magnitude (astronomy)
Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory
- “Didymos—The Ideal Target for DART’s Mission“
“NASA’s DART Mission Successfully Impacts Asteroid“
Emily Lakdawalla, Sky & Telescope (September 27, 2022)

⁵ DART details:

Wikipedia
- Applied Physics Laboratory
Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory; DART mission
NASA
- Didymos Reconnaissance and Asteroid Camera for OpNav (DRACO)
- Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART)
- DART Tests Autonomous Navigation System Using Jupiter and Europa (September 2,2022)
- SMART Nav: Giving Spacecraft the Power to Guide Themselves (July 14, 2021)”Optical Navigation for the DART Mission“
  Brian P. Rush, Declan M. Mages, Andrew T. Vaughan, Julie Bellerose, Shyam Bhaskaran
  Mission Design and Navigation Section, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology; 3rd Space imaging Workshop, Atlanta, GA
  (October 10-12, 2022)
  (from https://seal.ae.gatech.edu/sites/default/files/2022-10/SIW22-07.pdf (October 17, 2022))
“Image Processing Algorithms For Deep-Space Autonomous Optical Navigation“
Shuang Li, Ruikun Lu, Liu Zhang, Yuming Peng; The Journal of Navigation (July 2013) published online by Cambridge University Press (April 22, 2013)
SPIE Digital Library (SPIE: the international society for optics and photonics)
- “Didymos Reconnaissance and Asteroid Camera for OpNav (DRACO): design, fabrication, test, and operation“
  Z. J. Fletcher, K. J. Ryan, C. M. Ernst, B. Maas, J. Dickman, J. Greenberg, T. Nelson, D. Lewis, J. Mize, A. Cheng, D. Bekker, L. Rodriguez, R. T. Daly, R. Smith, M. Q. Tran; Proceedings Volume 12180, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave; 121800E (2022)
- “Design of the Didymos Reconnaissance and Asteroid Camera for OpNav (DRACO) on the double asteroid redirection test (DART)“
  Zachary J. Fletcher, Kyle J. Ryan, B. J. Maas, J. R. Dickman, R. P. Hammond, D. L. Bekker, T. W. Nelson, J. M. Mize, J. M. Greenberg, W. M. Hunt, S. A. Smee, N. L. Chabot, A. F. Cheng; Proceedings Volume 10698, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2018: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave; SPIE Astronomical Telescopes + Instrumentation, 2018, Austin, Texas, United States (July 8, 2018)

⁶ Acronyms and more:

Impactor-Spacecraft
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
NASA
- Constellation Program: … The Altair Lunar Lander
- Orion Optical Navigation Image Processing Software (OpNAV) (MSC-26456-1)
- DART Tests Autonomous Navigation System Using Jupiter and Europa (September 2,2022)
The acronym opnav means:
- Optical Navigation Plan and Strategy for the Lunar Lander Altair (OpNav )
- Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV)
- Orion Optical Navigation Image Processing Software (OpNAV)
- Proprietary Software Platform Powered by Skai/Orca Pacific (OPNav)

⁷ Old movies, new missions:

Wikipedia

Posted in Discursive Detours, Science News | Tagged artificial intelligence, asteroids and comets, astronomy, science, space exploration, technology | 1 Comment

The Mars Mission That Hasn’t Happened Yet: 1954

Posted on October 15, 2022 by Brian H. Gill

Chesley Bonestell's 'Weightless in orbit 1,075 miles above earth, workers in space suits assemble three moon ships' (left half of double-page image); 'Man on the Moon THE JOURNEY' by Dr. Wernher von Braun; Technical Director, Army Ordnance Guided Missiles Development Group, Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, Alabama; Collier's magazine, page 52 (October 18, 1952)

From 1952 to 1954, Collier’s published “Man Will Conquer Space Soon!” — a series of articles describing a step-by-step plan for landing on Mars.

The first step was building an Earth-orbiting space station.

Then we would build ships to reach Earth’s moon: and finally assemble a fleet for an expedition to Mars.

“Man on the Moon“
Collier’s magazine, page 52 (October 18, 1952)

“Scientists have dreamed for centuries of a lunar voyage. Now we know it can be done within the next 25 years—if we get started right away. In this symposium, a distinguished panel tells how….”

So far, we’ve achieved one of those goals. Maybe one and a half, two or three, depending on what value’s given to space stations which have been built and the Space Shuttle.

Moon Landing: a Revised Schedule

The Collier’s “Man Will Conquer Space Soon!” series began March 22, 1952.

A little over 17 years later, the Apollo 11 crew returned from humanity’s first visit to another world.

Granted, we only sent an orbiter and a lander: not Collier’s three ships. We put off designing a space shuttle until later, and still don’t have a spinning space station.

I think setting up an orbiting space station first, then using it as a shipbuilding facility, would have made sense. But that’s not how America’s Apollo program reached Earth’s moon.

I figure we skipped a few steps partly because an unpleasant situation we call the Cold War was in progress.¹

Beginnings and Endings, Periodization and a Little Politics: the Space Race

NASA's 'Earth Rising over the Moon's Horizon,' taken during Apollo 11 mission; Lunar terrain is Smyth's Sea on the nearside. (July 1969)

The Space Race began in 1944 when a German V-2 missile crossed the Kármán line, a somewhat arbitrary “edge of space” 100 kilometers above Earth’s mean sea level.

On the other hand, maybe the Space Race began in 1945. That’s when the United States Government realized that a New York Times editorial had been wrong and Robert Goddard had been right.

Or the Space Race began in 1921, when the Soviet Union’s Gas Dynamics Laboratory began developing solid-fuel rockets.

Who won the Space Race depends on who you’re listening to.

The Soviet Union won the Space Race in 1957, 1961 and 1971: with Sputnik 1, Vostok 1 and Salyut 1; the first satellite, first human orbital flight and first space station.

Or the United States won in 1961, 1966 and 1969: with Freedom 7, Gemini 8 and Apollo 11; the first human-piloted spaceflight, then the first orbital rendezvous and docking. And, finally, the first humans landing on Earth’s moon.

At any rate, the Space Race ended in 1986, when the Soviet Union began assembling the Mir modular space station. Or in 1998, when in-orbit assembly of the International Space Station began.

Or it’s still in progress, with more nations and several private-sector outfits competing.

I don’t know exactly when the ‘who’s first in space’ competition between the Soviet Union and United States started being called the Space Race, or how long that moniker will be in use. I’ve talked about periodization, historiography and similarly-dusty topics before.²

Space Travel Gets Real: Tracking John Glenn, Flight Control Policies

I started noticing the Space Race in the early 1960s, and remember tracking John Glenn’s Friendship 7 orbiter as it circled Earth: along with the rest of — I think it was the fifth-grade class.

That was on February 20, 1962.

Yuri Gagarin had orbited Earth in Vostok 1 the year before: April 12, 1961. But the first human-piloted spaceflight was Allan Shepherd’s suborbital jump on May 5, 1961.

I don’t know why my country’s first astronauts were pilots while the Soviet Union’s early space pilots were functionally passengers. Maybe we had an edge in flight control technology.

Or maybe there was some truth in a wisecrack I read at the time: that folks running the Soviet space program wanted assurance that their pilots would come down in Soviet territory.

Then again, maybe not. I gather that Vostok 1 had functioning flight controls. But they were locked, with the unlock code in a sealed envelope which Yuri Gagarin could open.

That does make sense, sort of, since apparently the Soviet flight controllers weren’t sure about how a human would react to extended missions in micro gravity.

I’m guessing that by the early 1960s, many Americans had realized that space travel really could happen. And that we had the technology which made it possible.

Much of the mid-20th century’s technical progress may have been inspired by science fiction’s ‘Golden Age,’ from around 1940 to 1950. Or 1930s to 1960s. Opinions vary.

Or maybe we reached the moon despite the profusion of pulp fiction tales filled with sound, fury and wildly-inaccurate science.

Then there were the Bullard of the Space Patrol stories: and I’m drifting off-topic.³

Destination Mars: Getting Ready

Chesley Bonestell's illustration: 'The first landing party takes off for Mars,' 'Can We Get to MARS?' by Dr. Wernher von Braun with Cornelius Ryan, Collier's magazine, pages 26-27 (April 30, 1954) — “The first landing party takes off for Mars. Two other landing planes will wait until runway is prepared for them, and the remaining seven ships will stay in 600-mile orbit….” (Collier’s (April 30, 1954))

The Collier’s “Man Will Conquer Space Soon!” series ended with two articles in the April 30, 1954 issue: “Can We Get to Mars” and “Is There Life on Mars?”

Dr. Fred L. Whipple’s “Is There Life…” article said, basically, ‘we don’t know,’ and speculated that maybe we’d find something like bacteria, lichen, moss: or something completely different.

Back in the 1920s, some astronomers thought that they’d found evidence for oxygen and water vapor in the Martian atmosphere. Others had found no evidence of any sort of atmosphere.

By 1925, Donald H. Menzel published his analysis of observations to date. He said that the Martian polar caps were some sort of surface (not atmospheric) phenomenon, that Mars had a measurable atmosphere: and that it couldn’t have any more than 0.18 Earth’s sea-level pressure.

That’s about one-fifth Earth’s sea-level pressure. Pressure at the top of Mount Everest averages roughly one-third sea-level pressure.

Dr. Whipple was right. Even with Martian air pressure as high as then-current high-end estimates said it might be, it’d be “…so low that an earth man couldn’t survive without a pressurized suit….”⁴

Ideal Air Pressure, Limits and ‘Hollywood Magic’

Ideal air pressure for humans is Earth’s sea-level pressure. At or below the average pressure at or below 150 meters, 450 feet, actually.

And, assuming we’re using something like SCUBA gear, less than 150 feet underwater; give or take a bit.

Our limits involve partial pressure of oxygen, metabolism, individual differences. It’s complicated, which is an understatement.

I live in central Minnesota, 1,250 feet above sea level, but have long since acclimated, so breathing is no problem for me.

At higher altitudes, however, no amount of acclimation will let us get enough oxygen.

Our minimum air pressure, assuming Earth’s nitrogen-oxygen mix, is 35.6 kilopascals. Approximately.

Kilopascal is geek-speak for a thousand Pascals. Earth’s average sea-level pressure is 101,325 pascals, or 101.353 kilopascals. It’s also called one standard atmosphere, and don’t bother trying to memorize all this. There will not be a test.

Even at the top of Mount Everest, humans don’t need pressure suits. We can get by, carrying extra oxygen along for altitudes in the death zone.

But since water’s boiling point drops as air pressure goes down, at some point water will boil at our normal body temperature. At that point, called the Armstrong limit, pressure suits aren’t an option: they’re a requirement.

Although nifty special effects in the film Total Recall (1990) may have been inspired by the Armstrong limit: that’s ‘Hollywood magic,’ not science. And that’s another topic.

Now, because I like lists and tables and stuff like that, here’s average atmospheric pressure at various places on Mars, Earth and Venus. The units are kilopascals:⁵

0.03 Olympus Mons summit
0.6 Mars average
1.16 Hellas Planitia bottom
6.25 Armstrong limit
33.7 Mount Everest summit
35.6 or less — death zone
101.3 Earth sea level
106.7 Dead Sea level
9,200 Surface of Venus

Orbits and the Van Allen Radiation Belts

NASA's illustration, a cutaway model of Earth's inner and outer Van Allen belts. (February 13, 2013) — Earth’s inner and outer Van Allen radiation belts. (NASA illustration)

Wernher von Braun had good reasons for putting the Collier’s space station in a 1,075-mile-altitude almost-polar orbit.

That way, folks on the station would circle Earth every two hours. The orbit’s plane wouldn’t change, but Earth would keep turning; so after 24 hours folks on the station would have had a view of every spot on Earth.

Just one problem. Orbiting at 1,075 miles altitude, the Collier’s space station would have been at or near the edge of the inner Van Allen radiation belt.

The inner belt’s energetic protons aren’t good for electronics or humans, so most satellites stay below that danger zone.

The International Space Station is in low Earth orbit, about 250 miles up. Partly because that’s below the inner Van Allen radiation belt.

Missions to Earth’s moon went through the belt, but since they spent very little time rubbing elbows with the Van Allen belt charged particles, astronauts weren’t exposed overly much.

Once outside the Van Allen belts, they picked up radiation from Solar particles. But again, not enough to be a health hazard.

Starting around 1895, Norway’s Kristian Birkeland in Norway studied how electron beams and magnets interact. Henri Poincaré of France analyzed his results, Carl Størmer — the point I’m making is that when Explorers 1 and 3 detecting what we call the Van Allen belts, it wasn’t a surprise.

Radiation belts are among of the “physical … rigors” we learned about after Collier’s “Man Will Conquer Space Soon!” series hit America’s newsstands. We’ve also been learning about coronal mass ejections and other space weather.⁶

Humanity’s Arrival on Mars: Timetables and Technology

NASA's 'Journey to Mars:' Perseverance rover's caching strategy.

The Collier’s 1952-54 “Man Will Conquer Space Soon!” articles were right: we knew the science and had most of the technology, either off the shelf or in development, to reach Earth’s moon within 25 years.

Dr. Wernher von Braun and Cornelius Ryan may be right about our timetable for reaching Mars.

“Can We Get to MARS?”
Dr. Wernher von Braun, Cornelius Ryan, Collier’s (April 30, 1954)
“…Will man ever go to Mars? I am sure he will — but it will be a century or more before he’s ready. In that time scientists and engineers will learn more about the physical and mental rigors of interplanetary flight — and about the unknown dangers of life on another planet. Some of that information may become available within the next 25 years or so, through the erection of a space station above the earth (where telescope viewings will not be blurred by the earth’s atmosphere) and through the subsequent exploration of the moon, as described in previous issues of Collier’s…”

But the last time I checked, outfits like NASA still have the late 2030s penciled in as our target date for landing humans on Mars.

That’s about two decades ahead of the Collier’s best-case estimate. It might seem overly optimistic, considering that we still don’t have Collier’s ‘big wheel’ space station.

Folks have, however, sent orbiters and various landers to Mars; many of which are still in operation or were shut down earlier this year.

Orbiters
- Mars Odyssey (2001) U.S.
- Mars Express (2004) ESA
- Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (2006) U.S.
- Mars Orbiter Mission (Mangalyaan) (2013) India (mission ended April 2022)
- MAVEN (2014) U.S.
- Trace Gas Orbiter (2016) ESA/Roscosmos
- Hope Mars Mission (Emirates Mars Mission) (2021) United Arab Emirates
- Tianwen-1 (2021) China
Surface explorers
- Mars Science Laboratory (2012) U.S.
  - Curiosity (rover)
- InSight stationary lander (2018) U.S.
- Tianwen-1 (2021) China
  - Zhurong (rover)
- Mars 2020 (2021) U.S.
  - Perseverance (rover)
  - Ingenuity (helicopter)

I think some the apparent disconnect between Collier’s predictions and what actually happened is illustrated in Fred Freeman’s 1952 cutaway of the Collier’s space station.

Those things that look like large television screens almost certainly are not.

One of the labeled work stations is “photographic screen control,” and another “photographic screen.”

There’s also a darkroom, labeled “developing room,” on the deck below “telescope control.”⁷

Let’s remember that the Collier’s series was a no-nonsense look at what could be done, using cutting-edge technology of the day.

Technology that existed as practical devices. Not ‘Buck Rogers’ gadgets. Like television.

Scientists, Buck Rogers, “Televista,” “Detecto-Television” and DuMont Laboratories

Philip Francis Nowlan's Buck Rogers being shown a Detecto Television device. Detail from a Buck Rogers comic strip. (ca. 1930s) — Buck Rogers and a Detecto-Television set. (ca. 1930s)

Television technology arguably started with mechanical facsimile machines like Alexander Bain’s in the 1840s and Frederick Bakewell’s in 1851.

By 1914, Archibald Low’s “Televista” impressed retail magnate H. G. Selfridge. He made Low’s Televista part of the Scientific and Electrical Exhibition in his department store.

But these were all laboratory models. They worked, but were too expensive and not nearly high-resolution enough for commercial use.

Then, in 1928, WRGB became the first (experimental) commercial broadcast television station in the world.

Or maybe it was Reichs-Rundfunk-Gesellschaft’s station, during Weimar Germany.

RRG had been broadcasting public radio back in Weimar days. Maybe it ran the first broadcast television station. But, possibly because the National Socialist German Workers’ Party took over RRG, what little I’ve found about its television station is sketchy.

Electronic television’s roots go back to the late 19th century. In 1926, Alan Archibald Campbell-Swinton announced “not very successful” experiments involving a cathode ray tube and what he called “distant electric vision.”

Philo Farnsworth’s 1928 demo model has gotten credit as the first working electronic television system, but it wasn’t commercially viable; since most folks want to watch more than a straight line.

DuMont Laboratories manufactured and sold the first all-electronic television sets for the general public in 1938. American broadcast networks popped up during the 1940s.

Color television goes back to Vladimir K. Zworykin’s 1925 cathode ray device. DuMont Laboratories displayed a demo color-projection model in 1938, but it wasn’t until 1946 that RCA released an all-electronic color television set.⁸

“I Love Lucy” and Robot Spaceships

By 1952, an increasing number of Americans were watching television.

So scientists and technicians working with Fred Freeman would have known that Buck Rogers’ Detecto-Television wasn’t entirely fictional.

But I suspect they also thought that orbital weather observers needed better image quality than viewers of “The Roy Rogers Show” and “I Love Lucy.”⁹

And they would, I think, have been right.

So how come we still haven’t had meteorologists working full-time in space stations, but have sent robot spaceships to Mars?

The Abacus, the the Analytical Engine and Terrain Relative Navigation

JPL/NASA's Figure 6. Mars 2020 flight system in the Launch / Cruise Configuration. (2014-2017) — NASA/JPL’s illustration: Mars 2020 flight system.

The abacus is still the best data processing tech for some applications.

But during the 19th century, folks like George Boole and Charles Babbage worked out some of the math needed for next-generation abacuses.

Or should that be abaci? Never mind.

Babbage made what’s probably the first non-abacus mechanical computer: his Difference Engine. Then, lifted programming tech from the 18th century Jacquard loom controller, he developed the Analytical Engine.

Skipping lightly over William Eccles’s crystal diode oscillator, Julius Edgar Lilienfeld’s field-effect transistor, Bell Labs’ point-contact transistor and a whole bunch of companies that made the very first transistor radio —

From 1906 to 1954, solid-state electronics went from laboratory curiosity to commercial personal electronics.

Skipping even more lightly over the next several decades, computers and robots scared some folks silly, made life more interesting and productive for others.

And by the time NASA launched the Mars 2020 mission, the lander was piloted by the Terrain Relative Navigation (TRN) system.

Oversimplifying something fierce, photos of the MARS 2020 landing site had been sent back by robot spaceships orbiting Mars. Folks at JPL and NASA gave TRN those photos, told it what they figured a safe landing spot would look like, and let the robot handle final descent.

Considering how long it takes signals to get from Earth to Mars, it’s the only practical way to handle Martian flight.¹⁰

We’re not at the point, yet, where mission control tells a rover or flier where to go next: and the robot says (in ‘robotese’) “no, that doesn’t make sense; I’m going over here, and will let you know if I find something interesting.”

But I think we’re going in that direction, and that’s another yet topic.

Collier’s “Man Will Conquer Space Soon!” Series: to be Continued

I was going to talk about the Collier’s shuttle, and their rather grandiose Mars expedition. But I’ve run out of time this week, so that’ll wait.

Meanwhile, here’s the usual link list. This week’s is mostly what I’ve written about spaceflight and how I see robots:

“Back to the Moon, Onward to Mars: Artemis I“
(September 3, 2022)
“Robots on Mars, an Empty Sample Tube and a Laser“
(August 14, 2021)
“Perseverance Landing: Pictures From JPL and Mars“
(February 19, 2021)
“‘One Small Step’ in a Long Journey“
(July 20, 2019)
“Materialism, Robots and Attitudes“
(April 15, 2018)

¹ Moon programs, imagined and real:

Wikipedia
Horizons, Newsletter of AIAA Houston Section: Volume 39, Issue 3, the November / December 2013 issue
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

² Remembering the Space Race:

Wikipedia
“Stoke Space aims to build rapidly reusable rocket with a completely novel design“
Eric Berger, Ars Technica (October 10, 2022)
Periodization in Social History
encyclopedia.com
A light look at a dusty subject
- “Marlowe’s ‘Dr. Faustus,’ Freedom, Censorship and Speculation” (September 10, 2022)
  - Periodization and Impractical-But-Fun Speculation
- “Apollo 11, 50 Years Later” (July 16, 2019)
  - Viewpoints
- “‘One Small Step’ in a Long Journey” (July 20, 2019)
  - Cool Heads and Flying Gas Pipes

³ Science fiction, science fact:

Wikipedia
- History of science fiction
- Malcolm Jameson author of “Bullard of the Space Patrol” stories
- Mercury-Atlas 6
- Mercury-Redstone 3
- Philip Francis Nowlan
- Project Mercury
- Saratov
- Timeline of space exploration
- Vostok 1
- Vostok programme
- Vostok (spacecraft)
Golden Age Sci-Fi: 1934–1963 (one of the broader temporal range for this Golden Age that I’ve found)
HILOBROW
Vostok 1 landing site: Google Maps

⁴ Martian air, mostly:

Wikipedia
- Atmosphere of Mars
- Mount Everest
“The Atmosphere of Mars“
Donald H. Menzel, American Astronomical Society (1926) Provided by the NASA Astrophysics Data System

⁵ Atmospheric aspects:

Wikipedia

⁶ Charting the Solar sea, metaphorifcally:

Wikipedia
“The Exploration of the Earth’s Magnetosphere,” “#9H. Trapped Radiation — History“
An educational web site by David P. Stern and Mauricio Peredo, NASA (ca. 2001)
Collier’s magazine articles on the conquest of space
Willy Ley, Heinz Haber, Wernher von Braun, et al.; Collier’s magazine (1952-1954) editing by Pavel Petrovich Popelsky, via The Internet Archive

⁷ Collier’s space station and recent Mars missions:

Wikipedia
Collier’s magazine articles on the conquest of space
Willy Ley, Heinz Haber, Wernher von Braun, et al.; Collier’s magazine (1952-1954) editing by Pavel Petrovich Popelsky, via The Internet Archive
European Space Agency
- Mars Express
NASA
- Mars Helicopter Tech Demo (Ingenuity)
- Mars Express

⁸ Television, from laboratory curiosity to mass media:

Wikipedia
“A Medium of Modernity? Broadcasting in Weimar Germany, 1923–1932*“
Karl Christian; The Journal of Modern History; Volume 69, Number 4 (December 1997)

⁹ Two shows from the 1950s:

Wikipedia
- I Love Lucy
- The Roy Rogers Show

¹⁰ computers, history and a robot pilot (sort of):

Wikipedia
NASA
- “Mars Entry, Descent, and Landing Instrumentation 2 (MEDLI2),” Hillary Smith (October 22, 2020)
- “Landing NASA’s Mars 2020 Rover with Terrain Relative Navigation,” (July 1, 2019)
- “Guidance, Navigation and Control for the Entry, Descent and Landing of the Mars 2020 Mission,” Paul Brugarolas (2019)
- Software System for the Mars 2020 Mission Sampling and Caching Testbeds;” Kyle Edelberg, Paul Backes, Jeffrey Biesiadecki, Sawyer Brooks, Daniel Helmick, Todd Litwin, Brandon Metz, Jason Reid, Allen Sirota, Wayatt Ubellacker, Won Kim, Peter Vieira (2018)

Posted in Back to the Moon, Onward to Mars, Discursive Detours, Series | Tagged artificial intelligence, history, Mars, planets, robots, science, Solar planets, space exploration, technology | Leave a comment

Just Who is This Jesus Person, and Who Does He Think He is?

Posted on October 8, 2022 by Brian H. Gill

'Jesus Cleanses the Temple,' Otto Elliger. (1700) from Pitts Theological Library, Candler School of Theology, Emory University, Atlanta (Georgia); used w/o permission.

Right now, liturgically speaking, we’re in Ordinary Time between Easter and Advent: with Cycle C’s Sunday Masses and Cycle II’s weekday Masses.

Liturgy is important. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1135-1206)

And, although I’d recognize a Catholic Mass anywhere — or anywhen — we’ve found many different ways of celebrating our Lord’s victory over death.¹ (Catechism, 1200-1206)

Again, Cycles A, B, C, I and II matter; and so do rules for how we tweak diocesan calendars. But they’re not the most important part of being a Catholic.

Because I’m Catholic — good grief, because I’m human — knowing, loving and serving God is what I’m here for. (Catechism, 1-3, 27-43, 358)

Maybe that sounds overly abstract or theological.

I’ll back up and start another way.

I’m a Catholic, so I follow Jesus of Nazareth.

He’s unique.

That’s inspired artists, with varying results.

“Those Who Followed Were Afraid”??

I figure religious art has fashions and fads, like any other genre.

My tastes run more to stuff done by Kramskoi and Tissot.² So I feel the same way Lewis did, about a particular style that I hope will stay dormant for a while longer:

“…horrible lithographs of the Saviour (apparently seven feet high, with the face of a consumptive girl)….”
(“That Hideous Strength,” Chapter Eleven | Battle Begun, C. S. Lewis (1945)via fadedpage.com)

I understand — make that I hope — that artists who rendered Jesus as a languidly wispy chap were striving for a “spiritual” look.

And that brings me to what started me thinking about perceptions and Jesus this week:

“They were on the way, going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus went ahead of them. They were amazed, and those who followed were afraid. Taking the Twelve aside again, he began to tell them what was going to happen to him.”
(Mark 10:32)[emphasis mine]

“…those who followed were afraid…” seems like an odd response to someone who’d inspire “horrible lithographs” of the sort Lewis described.

Coming at it from another direction, though, the crowd’s response to Jesus makes sense; and I’ll get back to that.

Jesus the Nazarene and the Apostles

The important part of that bit from the Gospel of Mark is what Jesus told them about what was going to happen soon.

“‘Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death and hand him over to the Gentiles
“who will mock him, spit upon him, scourge him, and put him to death, but after three days he will rise.'”
(Mark10:33–34)

That heads-up is in Matthew and Luke, too. (Matthew 20:17–19; Luke 18:31–33)

After Jesus told them that he’d be executed, the Apostles were puzzled. “Clueless” might be a more appropriate word.

“But they understood nothing of this; the word remained hidden from them and they failed to comprehend what he said.”
(Luke 18:34)

Understanding “nothing of this” was – well, it was understandable. Under the circumstances.

Jesus was, as far as appearance went, some guy who said and did things that drew crowds. And occasionally performed miracles. Sometimes Jesus the Nazarene told stories, or shared sayings like the set we call the Beatitudes. (Matthew 5:3–12)

The Apostles probably realized that Jesus wasn’t just any celebrity. But I’ve gotten the impression that it took them some time to realize just who and what Jesus is.

From “Hosanna to the Son of David” to “Crucify Him”

Two millennia later, what Jesus said — well, I won’t say it makes sense to everyone, but most folks in my culture have at least heard about what happened:

“The crowds preceding him and those following kept crying out and saying:
”Hosanna to the Son of David;
blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord;
hosanna in the highest.'”
(Matthew 21:8–9)
“Pilate again said to them in reply, ‘Then what [do you want] me to do with [the man you call] the king of the Jews?’
“They shouted again, ‘Crucify him.'”
(Matthew 21:8–9)
“At noon darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon.
“And at three o’clock Jesus cried out in a loud voice, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?’ which is translated, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'”
“Jesus gave a loud cry and breathed his last.”
(Mark 15:33–34, 37)

Now, finally, back to why I think “those who followed were afraid” makes sense:

“They were on the way, going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus went ahead of them. They were amazed, and those who followed were afraid. Taking the Twelve aside again, he began to tell them what was going to happen to him.”
(Mark 10:32)[emphasis mine]

Basically, I suspect that Jesus may have momentarily let his shields down a bit; so that folks in his entourage could be aware that they were walking down the road with God.

It’d be a bit like the event we call the Transfiguration, only not quite so spectacular.

Now, about Jesus the Nazarene being — no kidding — God.

Claiming Divinity

James Tissot's 'The Exhortation to the Apostles (Recommandation aux apôtres).' (ca. 1886-1894) from Brooklyn Museum, via Wikimedia Commons, used w/o permission

Again, Jesus didn’t look weird: or wildly unlike anyone else.

He was, as far as most folks could tell, a celebrity who told stories, did the occasional miracle and two millennia later would sometimes be described as a wise man and good teacher.

So how come “the chief priests with the scribes and elders” were taunting Jesus while he was nailed to a cross, between two criminals?

“‘He saved others; he cannot save himself. So he is the king of Israel! Let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him.
“He trusted in God; let him deliver him now if he wants him. For he said, “I am the Son of God.”‘”
(Matthew 27:42–43)

I don’t — can’t — know what was going on inside their heads. My guess is that they were having conniptions over what Jesus might have done, if he’d played that “hosanna to the Son of David” card. And what the Romans would do to crush the rebellion.

I do know that they toned down what Jesus had said. Never mind “Son of God” — which our Lord had acknowledged that he was (Matthew 16:16–17) — Jesus had said, publicly, ‘I am God.’

“Jesus said to them, ‘Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM.’
“So they picked up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid and went out of the temple area.”
(John 8:58–59)

“I AM” was God’s response, that time when Moses asked God for a name during the burning bush interview. (Exodus 3:14)

Agreeing with Peter

(From temple in Marad, Akkadian Empire, via Louvre and Wikimedia Commons, used w/o permission.)
(Cuneiform inscription: Naram-Sin. From a temple in Marad. (ca. 2250 BC)

Jesus the Nazarene wasn’t the first person to claim divinity, not by about two and a quarter millennia.

Folks like Naram-Sin of Akkad and François Duvalier claimed divinity for arguably-political motives: these days we call that sort of thing a cult of personality.

As for Aleister Crowley’s Thelema and Ryuho Okawa’s Happy Science:³ for their sakes, I hope Crowley and Okawa really believe what they’ve said; and that’s another topic.

I follow Jesus of Nazareth because I think Peter was right: Jesus, son of Mary, is “the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:16)

The Man Who Said “I AM” and Defeated Death

'The Resurrection of Jesus Christ,' Piero della Francesca. (1463)

I think Peter is right because a few days after Jesus was executed and then buried: he stopped being dead.

It took the surviving disciples some time to get convinced that they weren’t hallucinating or seeing a ghost.

But once they realized that Jesus had changed the game — defeated death — they started sharing the best news humanity’s ever had, with anyone who would listen. (Matthew 28:16–20)

The basics are pretty simple.

God loves us, and wants to adopt us. All of us. (Romans 8:15; Ephesians 1:3–5; Peter 2:3–4; Catechism, 1-3, 27-30, 52, 1825, 1996)

That sounded good to me, so I took God up on the offer. Although it does mean that now I should act as if the ‘family values’ matter.

Happily, the values, or rules, are simple: love God, love my neighbors, and see everybody as my neighbor. (Matthew 5:43–44, 22:36–40; Mark 12:28–31; Luke 6:31 10:25–27, 29–37; Catechism, 1789)

I said simple, not easy, and that’s yet another topic.

Still Waiting, Still Working

Jesus, after a series of meetings with the surviving Apostles, left.

It took two angels to break up the crowd at that last meeting: with an assurance that our Lord would return. (Acts 1:6–11)

Two millennia later, we’re still waiting for our Lord’s return. Waiting and working. Part of our job is getting things — and ourselves — ready for the big day. (Catechism, 675-677, 849-856, 1021-1022, 1038-1041, 1928-1942, …)

My guess is that we’re not even close to what my culture calls the Second Coming. This place is a mess. And that’s yet again another topic. Topics.

That’s all I’ve got for this week. All the writing I’ve got ready for ‘A Catholic Citizen in America,’ that is. Next week — I’m not sure, actually, what I’ll be writing about.

That phrase, “getting things — and ourselves — ready,” reminded me of topics I haven’t touched on in some time. But deciding what I’ll be doing next week? That’ll wait.

Meanwhile, here’s some of what I’ve said about Jesus and acting like what I believe matters:

“Easter: Parades, Eggs, and the Best News Ever“
(April 16, 2022)
“Jesus, Human on His Mother’s Side: the Incarnation“
(December 25, 2021)
“Advent 2021: Another Year of Our Long Watch“
(December 4, 2021)
“Jesus, the Ultimate Alpha: a Personal View“
(April 4, 2021)
“Something Wonderful“
(April 9, 2020)

¹ Liturgy and Saints, very briefly:

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)

² Two artists:

Wikipedia
- Ivan Kramskoi
- James Tissot

³ Four people and several bad ideas:

Wikipedia

Posted in Being Catholic, Discursive Detours | Tagged evangelizing, God, history, Jesus, Resurrection | Leave a comment

DART Mission, Successful Planetary Defense Test; What’s Next

Posted on October 1, 2022 by Brian H. Gill

Update (October 11, 2022)

Early results are in.

Looks like the DART mission successfully shortened Dimorphos’ orbit by 32 minutes.

As a NASA press release said: “…This marks humanity’s … first full-scale demonstration of asteroid deflection technology….”

Excerpt from the NASA statement:

“NASA Confirms DART Mission Impact Changed Asteroid’s Motion in Space“
Josh Handal, Justyna Surowiec; press release; NASA, Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory (October 11, 2022)

“Analysis of data obtained over the past two weeks by NASA’s Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) investigation team shows the spacecraft’s kinetic impact with its target asteroid, Dimorphos, successfully altered the asteroid’s orbit. This marks humanity’s first time purposely changing the motion of a celestial object and the first full-scale demonstration of asteroid deflection technology….

…Prior to DART’s impact, it took Dimorphos 11 hours and 55 minutes to orbit its larger parent asteroid, Didymos. … the investigation team has confirmed the spacecraft’s impact altered Dimorphos’ orbit around Didymos by 32 minutes, shortening the 11 hour and 55-minute orbit to 11 hours and 23 minutes. This measurement has a margin of uncertainty of approximately plus or minus 2 minutes.

“Before its encounter, NASA had defined a minimum successful orbit period change of Dimorphos as change of 73 seconds or more. This early data show DART surpassed this minimum benchmark by more than 25 times.…”
[emphasis mine]

NASA/Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab's DART (Double Asteroid Redirection Test) poster. (2021)

News services dialed their headlines back a bit Tuesday. But Monday’s planetary defense test was a big deal, no matter how much of a nudge it gave Dimorphos.

“~~NASA successfully redirects asteroid~~ NASA successfully crashes into asteroid“
Natasha Zouves, Devan Markham, Kelsey Kernstine; (NewsNation)/KTLA 5 News (~~September 26, 2022~~ September 27, 2022)

“NASA successfully completed its Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) on Monday, launching a spacecraft into an asteroid.

“The goal: To change the path of the asteroid, diverting it away from Earth.

“Don’t fret. There was no real threat here on Earth.

“The collision happened 7 million miles away from our planet, and the technology could someday be used to save humanity in an ‘Armageddon’ situation, according to NASA….”

And I haven’t seen headlines of the ‘Reckless Government Experiment Endangers Humanity as Scientists Gloat’ or ‘Big Tech Targets Asteroid! Are You Next?’ variety.

Maybe my news feed isn’t inclusive enough. Or maybe “tampering with things man was not supposed to know” lost its popular panache, somewhere between the decline of disco and the rise of rave. More to the point, history happened on Monday, September 26, 2022.¹

“NASA’s DART Mission Hits Asteroid in First-Ever Planetary Defense Test“
Josh Handal, NASA; Justyna Surowiec / Michael Buckley, Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory; Press release (September 26, 2022; Updated September 27, 2022)

“After 10 months flying in space, NASA’s Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) – the world’s first planetary defense technology demonstration – successfully impacted its asteroid target on Monday, the agency’s first attempt to move an asteroid in space.

“Mission control at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) in Laurel, Maryland, announced the successful impact at 7:14 p.m. EDT.

“As a part of NASA’s overall planetary defense strategy, DART’s impact with the asteroid Dimorphos demonstrates a viable mitigation technique for protecting the planet from an Earth-bound asteroid or comet, if one were discovered.

“‘At its core, DART represents an unprecedented success for planetary defense, but it is also a mission of unity with a real benefit for all humanity,’ said NASA Administrator Bill Nelson. ‘As NASA studies the cosmos and our home planet, we’re also working to protect that home, and this international collaboration turned science fiction into science fact, demonstrating one way to protect Earth.’…”
[emphasis mine]

By any reasonable standard, this is a big deal. Although I still cringe when I read “unprecedented” in a press release. And that’s another topic.

How much of a big deal? That’s something we’ll learn over the next several months.

DART, Double Asteroid Redirection Test: On Target

The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory LLC's infographic: 'Spacecraft Orbit Diagram.'

Crashing into an astronomical body isn’t new.

Images sent back by DART’s camera as it flew into Dimorphos reminded me of the 1960s Ranger program: when, finally, Ranger 7 got off the pad, hit the moon and sent back pictures.

Hitting our 2,000-mile-wide moon with a five-foot-wide by 12-foot-tall spacecraft wasn’t going to change the moon’s orbit.

But this time, since Dimorphos is only a little over 500 feet across, and DART was moving very fast, scientists figure they’ve changed its orbit around Didymos.

Granted, DART only weighed 1,340 pounds, 610 kilograms — it’s a little larger than a vending machine — so it won’t have affected the orbit by much.

But astronomers have been keeping close track of the Didymos-Dimorphos pair for months. They’re reasonably sure they’ll get good numbers for how much the orbit has changed.

Dimorphos orbits Didymos about once every 12 hours. Astronomers will want observed times for many orbits, since the change may be barely measurable. We almost certainly won’t get results for a few months. They’ll want lots of timed orbits.²

And here’s a NASA news conference video, starting at 31:00/32:05, when they showed DART’s approach with a time lapse compiled from the probe’s camera.

(“NASA’s DART Mission Post-Asteroid-Impact News Briefing,” NASA (Sept. 26, 2022)

“No Real Threat”? “Potentially Hazardous Object”??

NASA and mainstream news coverage of the DART mission kept saying that there’s “no real threat” of this turning into something from the first reel of an old-school mad scientist film.

If editors editors had felt the urge, we might have seen far more colorful coverage.

Think “The Green Slime” meets “When Worlds Collide,” with a dash of “The Andromeda Strain.”

But, again, I haven’t seen scary ‘asteroid of doom’ headlines. I see this as good news.

On the other hand, Didymos-Dimorphos is a PHO, a potentially hazardous object and a NEO, near-Earth object. So I’m a little surprised that nobody’s sounding the alarm over NASA’s plot to destroy us all.

Not that I’ve noticed, that is; and I said surprised, not disappointed.

At any rate, Didymos-Dimprphos is a PHO because the asteroid pair’s orbit brings it almost as close to the sun as Earth: 1.0131 astronomical units.

Running a vending-machine-size robot into the pint-size portion of the pair won’t send it hurtling toward Earth.

But given time, gravitational interaction with the other 10,484 known Apollo asteroids might change the pair’s orbit so that they cross Earth’s orbit when Earth’s in that spot.

Then there are the ten thousand or so other Near-Earth objects we’ve spotted, plus everything else in the Solar System. Even if Didymos-Dimprphos never hits Earth, something else will.

Either Didymos, or Dimorphos, or both, falling out of our sky could be unpleasant. That’s why NASA, ESA and others have been planning missions like DART. I’ll get back to that.

When NASA and JPL went looking for DART target, their choices narrowed down to one.

The target had to get close enough to Earth, so that astronomers can measure its orbital period before and after impact. And still be far enough away so that the pair’s no more a threat than any other Apollo asteroid.³

Remembering Chelyabinsk, 2013, Tunguska, 1908: Asteroid Air Bursts

(From Doug Ellison/NASA, via Wikimedia Commons, used w/o permission.)
(Asteroid Dimorphos, as seen by DART , shortly before impact. (September 26, 2022))

Sooner or later, the Didymos-Dimorphos pair might run into Earth. How bad would that actually be?

Again, Dimorphos is a little over 500 feet across. Didymos is considerably larger: 2,625 feet, roughly a quarter-mile across.

Dimorphos is almost certainly a ‘rubble pile’ — bits and pieces of rock held together (loosely) by the pile’s (slight) gravity.

Didymos may be a rubble pile, too, which might account for its equatorial ridge. Then again, maybe it isn’t. I haven’t found anything definite on the point.

Now, let’s compare that pair to an asteroid that did run into Earth.

The object that lit up the sky over Chelyabinsk back in 2013 was about 56 feet across.

When its kinetic energy turned into heat and a shock wave, nobody got killed. Only a thousand or so folks were seriously injured, and no buildings were completely destroyed.

The Chelyabinsk meteor was smaller than either Didymos or Dimorphos, on a different orbit, and probably made of different stuff. So comparing the two would be an apples-to-oranges situation.

On the other hand, either Didymos or Dimorphos are a great deal bigger than thing that detonated over Chelyabinsk.

Happily, folks recognized the Chelyabinsk air burst as a natural phenomenon almost from the get-go, nobody got killed, and cleanup wasn’t much worse than major storm damage.

And the folks running Russia weren’t “demilitarizing” one of their neighbors in a “special military operation.” back in 2013.

Ideally, even if something brighter than the sun exploded over either Moscow or Kyev today, whoever’s in charge would verify that it wasn’t a nuclear bomb before launching a counter-strike. But as I keep saying, we don’t live in an ideal world.⁴

Tunguska, the 1490 Ch’ing-yang Event, Averages and Non-Survivors

(From NASA/Planetary Science, via Wikipedia, used w/o permission.)
(Objects roughly 1 to 20 meters in diameter impacting Earth’s atmosphere. (1994-2013))

Something like the Chelyabinsk event happens every few years, on average, somewhere on Earth. Only a few are newsworthy, since something like three quarters of the planet is ocean, and cities only cover a bit of the land.

Things like the 1908 Tunguska event are even rarer, happening on average every millennium or so.

That’s a good thing, since the blast was a thousand times more powerful than the one that punched out walls in Chelyabinsk.

I’ve given intervals between impacts as averages. Once every millennium could mean, for example, two ‘Tunguska events’ a year apart, than two millennia of just little booms.

So far, we’ve been lucky.

Apart from maybe the 1490 Ch’ing-yang event — which I gather some scholars say wasn’t properly documented — we don’t have records of a Tunguska-level event happening over a densely-populated area.

But I’m not sure that’s a comforting thought. We know about the Ch’ing-yang event because it happened in a province of China, about halfway through the Ming dynasty. The disaster affected only one part of a well-organized empire.

But for quite a bit of humanity’s history, a prosperous city-state might have been abruptly depopulated without leaving detailed records of the event.

Record-keeping, after all, requires observers and some way to record information from the observers. Today, observers could be near ground zero — and still preserve significant data before they died.

Like Robert Landsburg, who was near Mount Saint Helens when it went up.

As a pyroclastic cloud approached him, he took photos, rewound the film, put the camera in a backpack and shielded the backpack with his body. When searchers found his body, 17 days later, the film was intact.⁵

Asteroid Impact Avoidance, DART and Looking Ahead

(“Eyes on Asteroids“, “Real time visualization of every known asteroid or comet that is classified as a Near Earth Object (NEO).” (NASA/JPL))

Nobody had been tracking the Chelyabinsk object when it entered Earth’s atmosphere, partly because it came in from the general direction of the sun.

We’ve been finding and tracking a great many asteroids and comets since 2013, but I figure we haven’t spotted them all.

Even if astronomers did spot something like 99942 Apophis — an asteroid that’ll come close to Earth in April of 2029, but will miss us — heading for an impact in, say, 2032: we don’t have technology in place that could prevent it.

That’s the bad news.

The good news is that the DART mission has been a success so far, and we’ll have at least preliminary data on its effectiveness in a few months.

Maybe, by some miracle, members of the United States Congress could be convinced that the incoming asteroid wasn’t a plot by the other party: and give NASA the okay to save their lives.

We’re not the only fish in this pond, of course. Maybe the Parliament of Singapore would get the ball rolling.

In any case, I’m pretty sure that cobbling together an effective asteroid mover would involve NASA, ESA, JAXA and anyone else with tech and talent who’s living on Earth.

As it is, JAXA, the Italian Space Agency and several private aerospace companies have been involved in the DART mission.⁶

By the way, I recommend the NASA/JPL “Eyes on Asteroids” interactive visualization of stuff in the inner Solar System. It’s regularly updated, with fairly intuitive rotate-and-zoom controls: so it may take a while to load. But again: I recommend it.

We are Not Doomed: And We’re Learning

One more bit of bad news, and then I’ll explain why I don’t think we’re doomed.

Right now, we’ve got a whole mess of methods for moving asteroids so that they won’t hit Earth; but we don’t know which look good on paper and will actually work.

That’s one of the reasons for the DART mission. In geek-speak, it’s a test of the kinetic impact method: basically, using Newton’s laws of motion the way we do while playing billiards. Which is a subset of cue sports, and that’s yet another topic.

Kinetic impact asteroid deflection is something we can do right now.

It’s something we have done, as of Monday, September 26, 2022.

What we don’t know yet is how much of the DART probe’s momentum transferred to the rubble pile we call Dimorphos. There’s also the question of what’s happened to Dimorphos, apart from a slight change in velocity.

Another, Hollywood-friendly, asteroid deflection method is setting off a nuclear bomb on or in the thing.⁷ Practical issues aside, I’m guessing this alternative will have to wait until politicos and activists are a trifle less rabid when atom bombs are in play.

Getting Ready Before the Next Tunguska Event

Skipping over esoteric tech like ion beams, laser ablation and gravity tractors — that last isn’t, or isn’t quite, science fiction’s “tractor beam” and might be practical, someday — I think Deep Space Industries was on the right track, with their proposed asteroid mining systems.

On the right track, but decades to maybe a century ahead of the curve. Bradford Space acquired Deep Space Industries in 2019. Bradford Space has been focusing on logistics and components that folks need now.⁸

The good news is that NASA, ESA and a great many other organizations and individuals have been cooperating; tracking objects that might hit Earth, and working the bugs out of tech that can keep us from learning what a Tunguska event looks like when a city’s under the blast.

This is a good time for that sort of research and development: before we spot an asteroid headed our way.

We Can Develop the Technology: But Should We Use It?

(From ASI/NASA, via NASA, used w/o permission.)
(Asteroid Dimorphos a few minutes after the DART impact. (September 26, 2022))

ISA’s LICIACube CubeSat, a miniature spacecraft that had been riding with the DART mission, sent back that image a few minutes after DART hit Dimporphos.

Scientists will be analyzing, comparing, debating and learning from images like that and other data: for years, most likely. As I said earlier, we’re learning.

I think we will have the tech needed to keep rocks like the one that detonated over Chelyabinsk from hurting folks: before something like that happens over another city. Probably.

Again, although we’re getting a handle on how often on average impacts of a given size happen: that doesn’t tell us when mountains will fall out of the sky.

The odds are better that we’ll be ready in time to prevent another Tunguska event.

And we have, probably, quite a long time before something the size of the Canyon Diablo meteorite blows a kilometer-wide hole somewhere on our home.⁹

But, and maybe this is a no-brainer, but: is it right to try keeping folks from being killed?

Now, since I’ve noticed no recent religious objections to weather forecasts or lightning rods, I’m guessing that most folks have gotten over the notion that we should let disasters happen.

Dominion, Responsibility, and Incoming Asteroids

On the other hand, folks still do express odd notions: sometimes in my culture’s traditional style, sometimes the same old song with updated lyrics.

“…’It’s scary. It’s this new language that’s forming — I don’t even recognize,’ she said. ‘It’s scary to know, it’s been proven through science, that climate change is due to human activity. And we continue to ignore it, and the only voice we have is through voting,’ Lawrence said. After Long said the American public had recently voted and selected Trump, who has denied the existence of climate change in the past, Lawrence said the result was “startling.’
”’You’re watching these hurricanes now, and it’s hard — especially while promoting this movie, not to feel Mother Nature’s rage and wrath,’ she said….”
(“Jennifer Lawrence calls hurricanes ‘Mother Nature’s rage and wrath’,” Entertainment Weekly (September 8, 2017))

“… There was the burgeoning Gulf Coast gambling industry, with a new casino that was to open on Labor Day weekend. But of course, what is a little gambling if it supports ‘education’ and brings revenue into government coffers? And then there was the 34th Annual gay, lesbian and transgender ‘Southern Decadence’ Labor Day gala to be held from August 31st to September 5th….”
(“Katrina: God’s Judgment on America” Anonymous; Restore America, via Beliefnet (2005))

“I have read in the Philosophical Transactions the account of the effects of lightning on St. Bride’s steeple. ‘Tis amazing to me, that after the full demonstration you had given, of the identity of lightning and of electricity, and the power of metalline conductors, they should ever think of repairing that steeple without such conductors. How astonishing is the force of prejudice even in an age of so much knowledge and free enquiry!”
(Letter, To Benjamin Franklin from John Winthrop, 6 January 1768, via founders.archives.gov)

Religious scruples regarding “metalline conductors” — lightning rods — is something that’s taken on a life of its own over the last two and a half centuries, and that’s yet again another topic, for another day.

I don’t see a problem with using our brains or saving lives, partly because I’m a Catholic.

First, I think we have dominion over this world. (Genesis 1:26, 2:5–8)

And since I’m a Catholic, I realize that our dominion doesn’t mean we can do whatever we like with our home.

Our “dominion” means having the authority and responsibility that comes with one of our jobs: taking care of this world and leaving it in good condition for future generations. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 16, 339, 356-358, 2402, 2415-2418, 2456)

And I figure that includes keeping an eye out for falling mountains, and developing the tech needed to nudge them aside when necessary.

I was going to talk about DART’s autonomous navigation system, ESA’s follow-up mission, and what we’ll be learning about asteroids. But I’ve run out of time this week.

Meanwhile, here’s vaguely-related stuff:

“Green Sahara, Environmental and Climate News“
(July 30, 2022)
“A Winter Weather Advisory, Forecasts and Making Sense“
(January 13, 2021)
“My Top 10 Science News Stories For 2020“
(December 29, 2020)
“Space ‘Firsts:’ New Horizons, Chang’e-4“
(January 18, 2019)
“Near-Earth Asteroids“
(November 4, 2016)

¹ An asteroid and last century’s music:

Wikipedia
- Dimorphos
- Disco
- Rave

² NASA’s DART mission, background:

Wikipedia
The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory LLC
- Press Kit page, with Summary
- “Double Asteroid Redirection Test,” NASA’S First Planetary Defense Test Mission; Press Kit, final (pdf)
NASA
- 65803 Didymos
- Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) Mission
- “NASA’s DART Mission Post-Asteroid-Impact News Briefing,” YouTube video (32:05) (September 26, 2022)
- The Orbit of Didymos (JPL) (November 17, 2021)

³ Science and three science fiction flicks:

Wikipedia
NASA
- CNEOS: Center for Near Earth Object Studies (JPL)
- “NASA’s DART Mission Post-Asteroid-Impact News Briefing,” YouTube video (32:05) (September 26, 2022)
- Planetary Defense

⁴ Miscellany:

Wikipedia
Part of my take on the mess in Ukraine
- “Ukraine, Russia, Annexation; and Learning from History” (April 30, 2022)
- “Ukraine: Invasion, Annexation, Labels, and a Good Idea” (March 19, 2022)

⁵ Disasters and data:

Wikipedia
“[meteorite-list] Meteorite deaths in Qingyang (Ch’ing-yang) in 1490“
Sterling K. Webb, email (January 1, 2010) via mail-archive.com
“Orbital Elements of Comet C/1490 Y1 and the Quadrantid shower“
Ki-Won Lee, Hong-Jin Yang, Myeong-Gu Park; Earth and Planetary Astrophysics, Astrophysics; arXiv, Cornell University (submitted on August 18, 2009)

⁶ Asteroids and agencies:

Wikipedia
- 99942 Apophis
- Asteroid impact avoidance
- Chelyabinsk meteor
- European Space Agency (ESA)
- Italian Space Agency (ISA)
- JAXA (Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency)
- Parliament of Singapore

⁷ Newton’s laws of motion and a Michael Bay film:

Wikipedia

⁸ Looking ahead:

Wikipedia
Bradford Space

⁹ Science and technology, research and development:

Wikipedia
“First Images from Italian Space Agency’s LICIACube Satellite” NASA (September 27, 2022)

Posted in Discursive Detours, Science News | Tagged asteroids and comets, astronomy, history, science, stewardship | Leave a comment

Pax Romana: Augustus to Nero

Nero’s Public Relations Problem

Attitudes and Authority, Respect and Rules

Obedience, Yes; Blind Obedience, No

The Roman Republic: Wars, Revolts and Pesky Ethics

Saving the Republic — From the Pax Romana

Pax Romana, Emperors and Reputations

Remembering Nero, Caligula and “True Detective” Magazine

Like This? Share It:

Like this:

DART: Trick Shot by OpNav, and a Successful Test

DART: Improving on Deep Impact’s Smart Impactor

Size and Distance Comparisons

Magnitude, Observations and a Cubesat

Autonomous Optical Navigation and Acronyms

OPNAVs and a Flow Chart

Reminiscing, B Movies — and a Really Big Deal

Echoes from B Movie Science Fiction and an Asteroid Deflection Method that Works

Like This? Share It:

Like this:

The Mars Mission That Hasn’t Happened Yet: 1954

Moon Landing: a Revised Schedule

Beginnings and Endings, Periodization and a Little Politics: the Space Race

Space Travel Gets Real: Tracking John Glenn, Flight Control Policies

Destination Mars: Getting Ready

Ideal Air Pressure, Limits and ‘Hollywood Magic’

Orbits and the Van Allen Radiation Belts

Humanity’s Arrival on Mars: Timetables and Technology

Scientists, Buck Rogers, “Televista,” “Detecto-Television” and DuMont Laboratories

“I Love Lucy” and Robot Spaceships

The Abacus, the the Analytical Engine and Terrain Relative Navigation

Collier’s “Man Will Conquer Space Soon!” Series: to be Continued

Like This? Share It:

Like this:

Just Who is This Jesus Person, and Who Does He Think He is?

“Those Who Followed Were Afraid”??

Jesus the Nazarene and the Apostles

From “Hosanna to the Son of David” to “Crucify Him”

Claiming Divinity

Agreeing with Peter

The Man Who Said “I AM” and Defeated Death

Still Waiting, Still Working

Like This? Share It:

Like this:

DART Mission, Successful Planetary Defense Test; What’s Next

DART, Double Asteroid Redirection Test: On Target

“No Real Threat”? “Potentially Hazardous Object”??

Remembering Chelyabinsk, 2013, Tunguska, 1908: Asteroid Air Bursts

Tunguska, the 1490 Ch’ing-yang Event, Averages and Non-Survivors

Asteroid Impact Avoidance, DART and Looking Ahead

We are Not Doomed: And We’re Learning

Getting Ready Before the Next Tunguska Event

We Can Develop the Technology: But Should We Use It?

Dominion, Responsibility, and Incoming Asteroids

Like This? Share It:

Like this:

Cookies

Subscribe!

Weekly Schedule

My Favorite Posts

More Perspectives From Catholic Laity:

Categories List

Tag Cloud

Support this Blog:

Who I am, briefly

Brian H. Gill

I'm Aluwir on X / Twitter

Current time, UTC / GMT

Advertisements

Association of Catholic Bloggers Contributor

Advertisements

Pinterest pin board