Writing
Wall Street Journal, March 9, 2018
HOW KUBRICK’S ‘2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY’ SAW INTO THE FUTURE
By Michael Benson
-
Now 50 years old, the famously opaque science-fiction classic anticipated flat-screen technology and artificial intelligence (but no, HAL was not a spoof of IBM).
Fifty years ago next month, invitation-only audiences gathered in specially equipped Cinerama theaters in Washington, New York and Los Angeles to preview a widescreen epic that director Stanley Kubrick had been working on for four years. Conceived in collaboration with the science-fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke, “2001: A Space Odyssey” was way over budget, and Hollywood rumor held that MGM had essentially bet the studio on the project.
The film’s previews were an unmitigated disaster. Its story line encompassed an exceptional temporal sweep, starting with the initial contact between pre-human ape-men and an omnipotent alien civilization and then vaulting forward to later encounters between Homo sapiens and the elusive aliens, represented throughout by the film’s iconic metallic-black monolith. Although featuring visual effects of unprecedented realism and power, Kubrick’s panoramic journey into space and time made few concessions to viewer understanding. The film was essentially a nonverbal experience. Its first words came only a good half-hour in.
Audience walkouts numbered well over 200 at the New York premiere on April 3, 1968, and the next day’s reviews were almost uniformly negative. Writing in the Village Voice, Andrew Sarris called the movie “a thoroughly uninteresting failure and the most damning demonstration yet of Stanley Kubrick’s inability to tell a story coherently and with a consistent point of view.” And yet that afternoon, a long line—comprised predominantly of younger people—extended down Broadway, awaiting the first matinee.
Stung by the initial reactions and under great pressure from MGM, Kubrick soon cut almost 20 minutes from the film. Although “2001” remained willfully opaque and open to interpretation, the trims removed redundancies, and the film spoke more clearly. Critics began to come around. In her review for the Boston Globe, Marjorie Adams, who had seen the shortened version, called it “the world’s most extraordinary film. Nothing like it has ever been shown in Boston before, or for that matter, anywhere. The film is as exciting as the discovery of a new dimension in life.”
Stanley and I are laughing all the way to the bank.
Although incomprehensible by prevailing Hollywood standards, Kubrick’s cryptic, mostly dialogue-free structure fit well with the radical avant-garde artistic innovations of the period, and the movie was an immediate countercultural hit. John Lennon quipped, “‘2001’? I see it every week,” and David Bowie was inspired to record his hit single “Space Oddity” just under a year later—a clear allusion to the film. “2001” became a genuine late-’60s cultural happening and a bellwether of the decade’s generational divide. With ticket sales brisk from day one, the production ended up the highest-grossing film of 1968. “As for the dwindling minority who still don’t like it, that’s their problem, not ours,” Clarke wrote. “Stanley and I are laughing all the way to the bank.”
Fifty years later, “2001: A Space Odyssey” is widely recognized as ranking among the most influential movies ever made. The most respected poll of such things, conducted every decade by the British Film Institute’s Sight & Sound magazine, asks the world’s leading directors and critics to name the 100 greatest films of all time. The last BFI decadal survey, conducted in 2012, placed it at No. 2 among directors and No. 6 among critics. Not bad for a film that critic Pauline Kael had waited a contemptuous 10 months before dismissing as “trash masquerading as art” in the pages of Harper’s.
Although the film’s vision of humanity expanding throughout the solar system proved overoptimistic, its portrait of a screen-based, technology-mediated future now seems almost uncannily accurate, and it devastatingly evokes the dehumanization that can result from such communication. As for the cyclopean HAL-9000 supercomputer, often considered the most human character in “2001,” it foreshadowed our anxious contemporary discussion about the potentially dystopian impact of artificial-intelligence technologies.
The film’s extraordinary predictive realism was entirely premeditated, the result of Kubrick and Clarke’s questing, cerebral commitment to scientific and technical accuracy. By all accounts the production was run less like a big-budget Hollywood production than an extended futurological R&D exercise. A broad slate of top aerospace and computer companies were brought on board as consultants and advisers, with such leading innovators as IBM, Bell Labs and Hewlett-Packard all playing important roles.
In the summer of 1965, Kubrick received two detailed Bell Labs reports written by A. Michael Noll (a trailblazer in the development of digital arts and 3-D animation) and information theorist John R. Pierce (who coined the term “transistor” and headed the team that built the first communications satellite). They recommended that the spacecraft systems in “2001” all feature multiple “fairly large, flat and rectangular” screens, with “no indication of the massive depth of equipment behind them.” Flat screens were, of course, unknown in the ’60s—at least outside of movie theaters—and they helped to ensure 2001’s futuristic sheen.
The role of the film’s sentient supercomputer, originally named Athena, grew throughout the film’s development, under the influence of discussions that Kubrick and Clarke held with MIT cognitive scientist and artificial intelligence pioneer Marvin Minsky and British cryptologist and mathematician I. J. Good. The computer’s physical look resulted from advice provided by IBM’s influential design bureau-think-tank—the Apple Industrial Design Group of its day—then led by industrial designer Eliot Noyes.
In July 1965, Noyes and his team provided drawings of astronauts floating within a kind of “brain room”—a concept that Kubrick initially rejected but later recognized as having intriguing dramatic possibilities. The astronaut Dave Bowman’s methodical lobotomization of the computer after it—or rather, “he”—had killed off the rest of the crew, conducted within the dappled red confines of the film’s remarkable brain-room set, remains one of the most powerfully disturbing scenes ever committed to celluloid.
HAL stood for “Heuristic Algorithmic,” a Minsky suggestion. The computer’s homicidal tendencies emerged only gradually, forcing the production to remove its original IBM nameplate and to substitute another acronym—a kind of subliminal cognate, with “HAL” being displaced from “IBM” by only one letter in each case, something that both Kubrick and Clarke strenuously denied was intentional.
Another fascinating result of the production’s consultation with Big Blue was the film’s forward-looking flat-screen tablet computers, which retained their IBM logos and were called “Newspads.” Constructed long before such technologies were feasible, the movie’s seemingly portable Newspads were actually welded to the tables on which they appeared casually placed, with hidden 16mm film projectors recessed underneath to provide content for their frosted-glass displays.
In the film’s final cut, the Newspads were only used by the astronauts to watch a TV program ostensibly from the BBC and were thus largely indistinguishable from the various other displays embedded in the sets. But the production had received permission from the New York Times to use its logo, and Kubrick’s designers had mocked up a digital front page for the Newspads, complete with multiple story choices to be accessed by touch-screen command. If the page had been used, the movie would almost certainly now be seen as having predicted the internet.
More than four decades later, however, the predictive futurism of “2001” was decisively ratified when Apple released its first iPad in 2010. Samsung issued a similar device a year later, and Apple immediately sued for patent infringement. That August the Korean company filed a response in federal court in San Jose, Calif., asserting that Apple couldn’t possibly have invented the iPad because the device had already been envisioned in “2001: A Space Odyssey.”
Samsung’s unusual defense, which featured both stills and YouTube links from the film, was ultimately ruled inadmissible as evidence, but it confirmed what many fans have long appreciated: the continuing relevance and still-startling prescience of Kubrick’s masterpiece.
Mr. Benson is the author of “Space Odyssey: Stanley Kubrick, Arthur Clarke and the Making of a Masterpiece,” which will be published on April 3 by Simon & Schuster.
THE NEW YORK TIMES, October 13. 2014
COSMOS AS MASTERPIECE: IN 'COSMIGRAPHICS,' OUR CHANGING PICTURES OF SPACE THROUGH TIME
by Michael Benson
-
The New York Times
Cosmos as Masterpiece
In ‘Cosmigraphics,’ Our Changing Pictures of Space Through Time
By MICHAEL BENSON
OCT. 13, 2014
Four elegantly cloaked, well-shod gentlemen in idiosyncratic caps peer through what seems to be a porthole at distant Earth — a planet so spiky with spires as to look machine-made. Their diverse headgear suggests differing national origins, with a turban wearer just visible to the far left.
The overall tenor of the scene — the brilliant sun above, a pale crescent moon below the terrestrial sphere — suggests that these are the great astronomers of history, engaged in discussions about the design of the universe. They’re positioned, however, on a weedy slope, which raises a question: Where are they, exactly?
The picture comes from a 15th-century French translation of the 1240 work “De Proprietatibus Rerum” (“On the Properties of Things”), by one Bartholomeus Anglicus, among the earliest forerunners of the modern encyclopedia.
I came upon it while surfing through early books on the website of the National Library of France; the image was a low-resolution black-and-white scan, but even that view was revelatory: at once enigmatic and precise, a 600-year-old proto-science-fiction rendering of the cosmos. The image, by an anonymous artist, is one of about 300 in my new book, “Cosmigraphics: Picturing Space Through Time,” being published Tuesday by Abrams — a survey of about 4,000 years of attempts to represent the universe in graphic form, whether in manuscripts, paintings, prints, books or broadsheets, all the way up to 21st-century supercomputer simulations of galaxy groups in flux and sunspots in bloom.
A symbiotic relationship between representation and understanding is evident throughout, with the latter not necessarily preceding the former. Graphic images need not be mere illustrations of concepts described in texts or equations; they can be an important form of knowledge in their own right. In “Laniakea Supercluster,” for example, the astronomer R. Brent Tully uses a supercomputer to visualize gravitational flow lines knitting together an echoing expanse of space-time more than 500 million light-years in diameter. In this as in other pictures selected for the book, the image was the discovery.
“Cosmigraphics” begins at the beginning — Day 1, creation, an address from which many visual depictions of the universe begin. Perhaps the most extraordinary set of pictures depicting space-time’s origins dates from 1573. Discovered in the mid-20th century in an obscure notebook in the National Library of Spain, it was painted by the Portuguese artist and philosopher Francisco de Holanda, a student and lifelong friend of Michelangelo.
In his first image, a set of elongated triangles represents the holy trinity, with the Greek letters alpha and omega on top and “Fiat Lux” (“let there be light”) just below. Swathed in flames, they extend down into a kind of clay vessel. Although clearly positioned within representational art of a particularly mystical kind, de Holanda’s triangular and circular forms seem simultaneously to anticipate early-20th-century abstraction — for example, Kazimir Malevich’s geometric Suprematist paintings. They’re startlingly modern.
The second notebook page, by contrast, seems to predict another singular genius: William Blake, whom it predates by two centuries. Here the Creator, belted by stars, has assumed a material form. The previously opaque vessel below is now transparent, and centered on a single planet. It has become the multiple nested crystalline spheres that for more than 15 centuries were thought to carry the planets, the sun and the moon on their courses, with Earth at their nucleus. This cosmological design, several variations of which can be seen in “Cosmigraphics,” was first proposed by Aristotle, and later modified and expanded by Ptolemy in the second century A.D.
Finally, de Holanda depicts a geometry of turning forms set in motion by God’s luminescent command. A giant sun pinions tiny Earth in a shadow-casting ray. While this work also vibrates with precursor elements to 20th-century avant-garde art, it contains an even more remarkable insight: Although the sun nominally rotates around Earth — the old geocentric universe of Aristotle and Ptolemy — in fact it dominates the picture, suggesting that the artist has subliminally grasped that it is the true center of our planetary system.
The image is one of several medieval and Renaissance depictions of cosmic design that seem to exhibit a kind of precognitive intuition of what Nicolaus Copernicus proposed in 1543 — the revolutionary notion of a heliocentric planetary system. (While de Holanda painted 30 years after Copernicus’s death, heliocentrism didn’t become accepted for at least another century, and it’s unlikely the artist meant to advocate it, if he even knew of it.)
The visual legacy encompassed by “Cosmigraphics” documents multiple stages of our evolving understanding as a species — a gradually dawning, forever incomplete situational awareness about the cosmos and our place within it, rising across millenniums. The book’s overarching subject is our emergence as conscious beings within an unimaginably vast and cryptic universe, one that doesn’t necessarily guard its secrets willfully, but doesn’t hand out codebooks either.
Among the narrative threads woven into the book are the 18th-century visual meditations on the possible design of the Milky Way — including the astonishing work of the undeservedly obscure English astronomer Thomas Wright, who in 1750 reasoned his way to (and illustrated) the flattened-disk form of our galaxy. In a book stuffed with exquisite mezzotint plates, Wright also conceived of another revolutionary concept: a multigalaxy cosmos. All of this a quarter-century before the American Revolution, at a time when the Milky Way was thought to constitute the entirety of the universe.
Wright’s vision was one seed from which our knowledge of billions of galaxies sprouted. “Cosmigraphics” traverses 16th- and 19th-century depictions of comets and eclipses, presents intensely colorful space-age planetary geological maps, and ultimately arrives at our contemporary understanding of space-time, in which whirling star-spirals glint all the way to the fading edge of the visible. But while the center doesn’t hold in this vision, neither does anarchy: We’re left with a spongiform universe of galaxy clusters foaming along weblike filaments of dark matter, which in turn extend between nodes of particularly bright high-mass concentrations. It all looks rather like a visualization of the Internet.
So where will it all end? “Cosmigraphics” concludes with a 14th-century vision of weightlessness. As with de Holanda’s notebook, it was discovered only in the mid-20th century, when restorers removed plaster from the ceiling of one of the outstanding surviving churches of Byzantium, Chora Church in Istanbul. This fresco depicting a human figure (evidently wearing a supernatural kind of space helmet) has become known as “The Angel of the Lord Rolling Up the Scroll of Heaven at the End of Time.”
——————————————————
Michael Benson, a visiting scholar at M.I.T.’s Center for Bits and Atoms, is the author of “Planetfall” and “Far Out.” This essay is adapted from the introduction to his new book, “Cosmigraphics: Picturing Space Through Time.”
THE NEW YORK TIMES (OP-ED), August 10. 2012
EXPLORING THE PLANETS ENRICHES US AT HOME
by Michael Benson
Link —>
-
NEW YORK — NASA’s newest marvel, a one-ton rover named Curiosity, has been set down with all the delicacy of a carton of eggs on the surface of Mars. The perfect landing came after a complex series of automated maneuvers that had been tagged the “seven minutes of terror,” but that in the end were executed so flawlessly as to render the mission’s Earthly handlers speechless with relief. There wasn’t even a single error to report.
On such evidence it could easily seem that planetary exploration is in the full bloom of vigorous good health under American leadership, thank you very much. There’s little doubt that during the last decade the genre of robotic space exploration has reached an apex of achievement.
Unfortunately, an apex already implies a fall, and the Obama administration’s proposed NASA budget for 2013 seemingly wants to make that fall as immediate as possible, chopping $300 million from the agency’s planetary science division — a whopping 20 percent cut from 2012.
If such an evisceration is allowed to stand, the most cost-effective and successful division of NASA — the very part of the agency that is actually exploring space with relatively economical robots, rather than flying astronauts expensively in the endless circularity of low Earth orbit — will be reduced to a ghost of its former self. Curiosity could well be a swan song: NASA’s final flagship interplanetary mission.
Such cuts will also assure the demise of a fully elaborated and streamlined national infrastructure, one that knits together engineering talent, scientific expertise, technological innovation, spaceflight management, and communications systems that span the entire Solar System. This apparatus took five decades to build and constitutes one of the great achievements of our time. If it is allowed to come crashing down, it will be virtually impossible to replace.
Just to be clear, these are the people and institutions that have produced some of the most cost-effective and powerful technologies ever conceived by the United States. Over the last five decades, NASA Planetary Science Division Voyagers and Vikings, its Magellan Venus radar mapper and Galileo Jupiter mission, its still-active Cassini Saturn orbiter and its ridiculously hardy Mars rovers Spirit and Opportunity have opened up the entire Solar System to human eyes. Brought to us in scrupulous detail, a dazzling series of worlds and their moons have enlarged our collective sense of our location within space and time.
But let’s set aside the glories of discovery for the moment and look at space exploration’s realpolitik. What do we get out of it, in concrete terms?
To begin with, the money spent to achieve the exploration of the Moon, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn is money spent on Earth, not anywhere else. It powers innovative companies and develops technologies that inevitably — and demonstrably — benefit our economy and our national prospects.
If we go back all the way to the Apollo era, we’ll soon see that it’s no accident that each of us has the equivalent of a flawlessly miniaturized Mission Control on our digital desktops, with rows of icons standing in for Houston’s rows of technicians seated at telemetry monitors, and each icon signifying a software application ready to do our bidding at a click.
Our sublimely networked information-based civilization would have been inconceivable without the immense number of technological innovations spurred by NASA’s push to land on the Moon. There would’ve been no Apple without Apollo.
And this fruitful spillover of software and hardware innovation has cascaded forth from NASA programs ever since, irrigating Silicon Valley, among other places. Remarkably, even near-failures by the space agency have resulted in positive spin-off technologies that in turn have led directly to meaningful, tangible civilian applications capable of propelling economic progress.
For example, the failure of NASA’s Galileo orbiter to open its crucial high-gain antenna while en-route to Jupiter in 1990 resulted in a NASA-wide crash program intended to rescue the mission. The problem was that the spacecraft’s underpowered omni-directional antenna, which had been intended for use only while Galileo was near Earth, was now the only way to receive data from a spacecraft more than 576 million miles away — the greatest distance of Jupiter from Earth. And that antenna only had the feeble power of a 20 watt bulb, radiating energy wastefully in every direction.
Undeterred, NASA engineers devised an ingenious series of IT fixes, many of which involved developing or refining techniques for compressing and transmitting data through the keyhole of that impossibly faint signal. The result is that to this day, every time you send large documents across the Internet, or for that matter attach feather-light JPEG pictures to an e-mail and send them to a friend, you’re directly benefiting from NASA research triggered by Galileo’s antenna failure. (Meanwhile the mission itself was transformed from certain failure to remarkable success.)
Many other wholly pragmatic reasons exist to pursue a vigorous program of interplanetary space exploration. These range from the utility of understanding the climatological stories of our neighboring terrestrial planets Venus and Mars (one of which swelters under a runaway greenhouse effect enforced by its dense atmosphere, with the other being a frigid desert world), to the usefulness of investigating the geology of near-Earth asteroids, and thus how they could potentially best be deflected from Earth-intersecting, and potentially civilization-ending, trajectories.
Finally it bears repeating that in its entirety, meaning including human spaceflight and all its other divisions, NASA costs less than half of one percent of the federal budget — a fraction of a penny on every tax dollar.
Given the steady stream of high tech innovations that has streamed forth from the agency for decades, enriching our lives and bolstering our economy, the successful landing of the Curiosity rover on Mars should be an occasion not just to celebrate an astonishingly cool civilizational achievement, but also to renew our national commitment to the peaceful exploration of outer space.
We can start by restoring funding to the agency’s prodigiously dynamic and successful interplanetary explorations.
———————————————————
Michael Benson is the author of “Beyond: Visions of the Interplanetary Probes” and “Far Out: A Space-Time Chronicle.” His new book of Solar System landscape photography, “Planetfall,” will be published in October.
THE INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE (OP-ED), April 11. 2011
WHEN THE CHAINS OF GRAVITY WERE BROKEN
Op-Ed Contributor
By MICHAEL BENSON
-
Fifty years ago Tuesday, an obscure Soviet Air Force lieutenant named Yuri Gagarin climbed onboard an eminently conventional form of transport — a converted city bus — and headed toward another order of vehicle altogether: a towering rocket, on top of which was mounted a gleaming spherical Vostok capsule encased in a pointed fairing.
According to Soviet media, upon exiting at the launch pad Gagarin made a spontaneous speech stuffed with patriotic fervor. Except it didn’t happen: His ghost-written oration had been taped in Moscow weeks earlier and only broadcast later that day. What he really did was order the driver to stop on its way to the pad, exit, and relieve himself on the rear tire. This action has since been repeated by most of the hundreds of crews launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome. In fact it’s considered bad luck — even bad manners — not to.
Two decades before Tom Wolfe coined the phrase, Gagarin clearly had an irrevocable case of Right Stuff. Ensconced in his cramped capsule, he was informed, only 20 minutes before launch, that his pulse rate was a calm 64. “Roger. That means my heart’s beating,” he responded.
His sense of humor weathered the thunderous ride to orbit as well, when up to five G’s of pressure shoved him deep into his seat, distorting his face into a sagging mask. Asked anxiously by the chief designer of the spacecraft, Sergei Korolev, how he felt, Gagarin laconically replied, “I feel fine. How about you?”
In fact pre-launch jitters had caused Korolev to swallow a dose of tranquilizers, which reportedly failed to prevent him from shaking visibly during much of Gagarin’s ride. Korolev’s agitation was understandable — half of the early R-7 rocket had failed during unmanned test flights, making Russian roulette a far safer activity.
But if Korolev’s pills didn’t work, his rocket did, and a euphoric Gagarin became the first person ever to witness the ravishing sight of the Earth from space: “It’s beautiful! What beauty!”
The Gagarin anniversary, and the retirement of the U.S. Space Shuttle this year after three decades spent reconnoitering low Earth orbit, bring the first great chapter of space flight to an end. So where do we stand a half century after Gagarin’s rocket ride? Are things “beautiful”?
The short answer is no — even if on the face of it, there are good reasons for satisfaction.
The space race triggered by early Soviet successes quickly led to the U.S. Apollo program and six triumphant Moon landings by American astronauts. Subsequent U.S. and Soviet space stations, most notably the giant American Skylab station and the Soviet Mir station, were ultimately replaced by the single most complex collective space engineering project ever attempted: the International Space Station.
Scheduled for completion this year, staffed by rotating mixed crews of American, Russian, European and Japanese astronauts, it’s also among the most expensive such project, clocking in at roughly $150 billion — a figure comparable to that of Apollo, only without a destination or truly convincing rationale.
And therein lies the rub. No matter how courageously, vigorously and skillfully human beings have worked in low Earth orbit since the return of the last Moon mission in 1972, through no fault of their own they’ve simply not been mandated to go anywhere new. The shuttle and the International Space Station, after all, both fly at altitudes lower than those achieved by the comparatively primitive two-man Gemini capsules of the mid-60’s. Let alone the Moon.
It’s hard to characterize such missions as exploration. In fact, most reasons for satisfaction in our progress in space lie in the achievements of a different kind of pioneer. Real space exploration since 1972 has been blazed by successive generations of spindly, elegantly machined, cost-efficient robotic spacecraft.
Possessing a different kind of stuff than Yuri Gagarin or Neil Armstrong, they’ve fanned out across the dazzlingly variegated archipelago of worlds that orbit the sun. With astronauts consigned to the outermost fringes of Earth’s atmosphere, it has been the unmanned spacecraft that have been opening the solar system to our eyes.
Robotic missions have landed on Venus, Mars, Saturn’s moon Titan, and the asteroid Eros. They’ve deployed balloons to explore the dense Venusian atmosphere, rovers to crawl across the ochre desert landscapes of Mars, and atmospheric probes to dive into Jupiter’s kinetic storm systems.
They’ve discovered the solar system’s largest canyon, its highest mountain and its deepest sea. In the last few years, they’ve observed giant plumes of water venting from Saturn’s moon Enceladus; standing lakes of liquid ethane on Saturn’s foggy satellite Titan; fallen meteorites and whirling dust-devils on the surface of Mars; and volcanoes erupting perennially from the pock-marked surface of Jupiter’s moon Io.
In the late 1990s NASA’s Galileo Orbiter provided stunning evidence that Jupiter’s enigmatic satellite Europa is in fact a giant pearlescent drop of sea-water with a comparatively thin ice crust and a deep rocky core. Europa’s vast global ocean may in fact possess up to three times as much water as all the oceans of Earth combined — an astonishing prospect, and one that should have created far more excitement than it has.
Many planetary scientists consider Europa the most likely potential home of extraterrestrial life inside our solar system. It seems to possess all the conditions known to have fostered life on Earth, and has probably had them for billions of years.
All these revelations have been gotten at a fraction of the cost of human space flight. NASA’s Science Mission Directorate, which runs all of the U.S. unmanned missions — including revolutionary space-based observatories such as the Hubble Space Telescope — receives less than half of the funds allocated to crewed missions.
Despite this, space probes have steadily increased in their reach and capabilities, to the point where the engineering wizards of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, can take a budget so comparatively miniscule that those in charge of human space flight might consider it a rounding error, and whip up such immaculately machined robots as the two exceptionally peripatetic and hardy Mars rovers, Spirit and Opportunity.
One is still fully operational and one finally failed last March, a whopping eight years after landing on what were originally conceived to be three-month surface missions. To date they’ve cost about $924 million dollars in total — only two thirds the cost of a single shuttle mission.
Despite this record of successes, and even with the retirement of the shuttle and the termination of NASA’s Constellation Program — a congenitally under-funded Bush-era effort to return astronauts to the Moon — the Science Mission Directorate is facing significant budget cuts for 2012.
For example, with NASA likely facing a decrease in funding of $6 billion, a mission dedicated to Europa is in imminent danger of being canceled — for the third time in just over a decade. This is not just deplorable, it’s contrary to our deepest innate drives as a species. Since when have we discovered an ocean and turned our backs on it?
None of this is to argue for phasing out human space flight in favor of the robotic kind. On the contrary, excellent reasons exist for a vigorous expansion of human activities beyond low Earth orbit and across the Solar System.
But in many ways the construction of the International Space Station has locked human space flight into a holding pattern for the near term, simply because it makes no sense to complete such an expensive project and then immediately abandon it. In that light, the recent Obama administration decisions to cancel the Constellation Moon program, retire the Space Shuttle and seek lower-cost ways of sending crews to the station are understandable.
But given their record of success with automated exploration, our first priority should be to use the savings thus achieved — and if necessary additional funds — to insure that NASA’s Science Mission Directorate remains fully funded.
Robotic space flight has revealed the Solar System to be a cornucopia of wonders, producing an unprecedented explosion in our understanding of our place in the universe.
It has provided stunning evidence of innumerable planets elsewhere in our galaxy, and even delivered pictures of embryonic solar systems forming. And it has done all this on less than one third of the budget of an agency that itself only consumes about 0.6 percent of the annual budget of the federal government.
In the late 1930’s H.G. Wells observed that the human race faces a choice between “the universe or nothing.” Given our planet’s ever-growing population, diminishing natural resources and the ominous specter of climate change, the same stark choice applies to our generation — only with interest. The decision should be obvious.
——————————————————
Michael Benson is the author of “Beyond: Visions of the Interplanetary Probes” and “Far Out: A Space-Time Chronicle.” An exhibition of photographic prints based on “Beyond” is currently on view at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Air and Space Museum in Washington.
CATALOG ESSAY FOR EXHIBITION “SKY DREAMERS”, June 24. 2010
LANDSCAPE AND TRAJECTORY
by Michael Benson
-
Future historians may perceive that the cascade of insights and innovations which finally led to powered flight at the turn of the 20th Century – and ultimately, space travel – occurred virtually simultaneously with the invention of a means to record it. But in fact by the time the Wright Brother’s flimsy first airplane lifted into the stiff headwinds of the Kitty Hawk peninsula in December 17, 1903, photography was 64 years old. The medium’s relative sophistication by the time of the first powered flight is evident in the clarity of our image of the event. Although still on glass-plate negative, by then emulsions were sufficiently sensitive, and shutter speeds fast enough, to freeze the Wright Flyer in time, suspended above the sand. The only blurring visible in the image was produced by its two whirling wooden propellers.
The original Flyer can be found at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Air and Space Museum; its delicate spars, cables and flimsy canvas make it seem more a sketch than a fully realized concept – the skin of an idea rather than its fruit. Photographic evidence to the contrary (because, after all, the machine is palpably aloft) constitutes among the best known of close to 200 prints presented in the exhibition “Sky Dreamers.” In a mounted print evidently once owned by Wright Brothers biographer John R. McMahon, and used so frequently for mass media reproduction that it bears the patina of many a newsroom and publisher, John T. Daniels’ photograph of the miraculously suspended Flyer hangs immutably within the first third of the exhibition.[1] “Sky Dreamers” traces the history of flight from its earliest manifestations in balloons and dirigibles through gliders, heaver-than-air powered flight, advanced airplanes and finally space exploration – including robotic exploration, or images produced by semi-autonomous unmanned spacecraft. It’s an extraordinary trajectory.
One could say that both art and its cousin, documentation, are surpluses produced by something itself constituting a surplus – with the latter being life itself, a product of excess energy and fortuitous chemistry within the universe’s larger frame. It’s as hard to determine their true function is as it is to ascertain the same concerning life’s position in space and time. Still, certain patterns are clear. The upward arc documented by “Sky Dreamers” illustrates an inexorable bursting-out, a vital push – by both life and its means of expression – to transcend geography, gravity and even mortality.
If we disregard various creation mythologies in favor of scientific explanations, which at least have the humility to admit where they fall short, we can say life was produced through an obscure alchemy in a region of the universe where conditions were right, excess energy abounded, and serendipity reigned. And after 3.7 billion years of incremental evolution (a period punctuated by several near-apocalyptic natural catastrophes that came close to wiping it out altogether), it eventually produced intelligence, which is another term for matter capable of self-regard. A piece of the universe capable of perceiving itself, in other words, had arisen. According to this view, the self-consciousness of the species is the self-consciousness of the universe itself, and that tendency is both abetted and made manifest by our modes of expression and documentation. Every photograph is an investigation of matter by matter.
So one could do worse than to survey that genre for clues as to our progress – progress both in discerning larger universal truths and in achieving insights about our situation and ourselves. At least in its early phases, before techniques of photographic manipulation became sophisticated, photos were understood as confirmation of something thereby verified as true. The clarity of the shot and suspended state of the Wright Flyer proved to the world that an improbable event had taken place as an incontrovertible fact, albeit with only five witnesses physically present. Photography was, and in many cases still is, taken as evidence of objective truth.[2] It is a manifestation of, and a means to the furtherance of, the scientific revolution that made empiricism virtually the only means for studying natural phenomena. The verification of the visual evidence of the world and of the greater universe inaugurated by photographic processes runs in parallel with and augments photography’s impact on the arts and popular culture. (The latter pair of overlapping fields rapidly appropriated both the technique – photography and film – and subject matter presented here – flight and space exploration – to their own ends, both benefiting from and further propagating interest in things airborne and interplanetary.)
Particularly within science and technology, photography can further be understood as a critical element in a process of discovery, reification and rehearsal. We discern truths about the material world, reaffirm what has been accomplished, and use this as a basis for continuing progress. 19th century studies of the moon, one of which is visible in “Sky Dreamers,” were critical to establishing the beginnings of a knowledge base later necessary to plan the first remote-controlled robotic landing by a spacecraft on another sphere, more than a hundred years later. A grainy two-frame mosaic of a boulder-strewn landscape rimmed by lunar hills, an image taken in June of 1966, helped inaugurate a new genre: extraterrestrial landscape photography conducted by automated machine.[3] (It’s a field brought to new levels of refinement over the last six years by NASA’s twin Mars Rovers, Spirit and Opportunity, the first mobile landscape photographers on another world. Like most US robotic spacecraft, the Mars Rovers were designed and built at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.) And these lunar pictures were in turn themselves necessary in the final push to land human beings there, an event accomplished by Apollo 11 in 1969.
This process of landscape and trajectory, of photo-augmented research and then further development, is evident throughout “Sky Dreamers.” The glider experiments of Otto Lilienthal, who made over 2,000 flights from 1891 until his death in a crash in 1896, are documented by eight shots in the show (a couple of which look remarkably as though they had been transposed directly from the inked lines of Leonardo’s notebooks into the silver silt of the photographic medium). These are followed by a pair of prints of similar glider experiments conducted by the Wright Brothers, who credited Lilienthal as being a major source of inspiration in their quest for powered flight; and then finally, the brother’s epochal first flight. The progression here is obvious, and the information-transmission necessary for it was at least partially accomplished by the very photographs on view in the exhibition.
Multiple larger and smaller trajectories arc throughout “Sky Dreamers.” The 1876 photograph of the Moon mentioned above links to a remarkably detailed astronomical plate of the Moon dating from that same inauguratory year of aviation, 1903. In it we see two lunar “seas,” Mare Sernitatis and Mare Tranquillitatis, the future locations for three of the six manned landings, Apollo 11, 15, and 17. This in turn finds resonance in an entertaining picture of a coat-and-tie wearing (museum curator) literally straddling the plaster-relief mountain range between Mare Sernitatis and Mare Umbrium as he touches up the latter’s distinctive Autolycus Crater. His shadow extends upwards towards the Lunar North Pole on a vast, semi-spherical relief map of the Moon’s Earth-facing hemisphere. Neil Armstrong, it seems, was the second man on the moon.
Completing this particular arc, the exhibition then displays three key examples of photographic documentation of Apollo 11. They include two AP wire photos released within five days of the mission’s return to Earth that July 24th. These reproduce frames from an automated 16 mm motion picture camera that documented Armstrong’s first steps on the lunar surface. Unfortunately, the graininess and soft focus of these film stills make them only marginally better than the practically undecipherable live black and white TV pictures of that event, providing further grist for the mill of conspiracy theorists convinced the whole thing was elaborately faked in a film studio. Of course, their apparently impervious theorizing also manages to deny the evidence of innumerable crisp large format Hasselblad frames of this and the other lunar landings and moonwalks; 841.5 lbs of lunar rocks and regolith brought to Earth; the presence of Earth-oriented mirrors at each of the six landing sites, off of which laser light can still be bounced to this day, a process useful in determining the annual rate of our natural satellite’s ongoing drift into a higher orbit; and the largest mystery of all, namely where all those giant five-stage Saturn V rockets were actually going so thunderously, when launched in front of tens of thousands of eye-witnesses, if not the Moon?[4] “Sky Dreamers”’ features a crisp Hasselblad photograph of Buzz Aldrin descending the Lunar Lander’s ladder, a print signed by Aldrin himself. The signature, at least, took place on Earth.
The lunar photography juxtapositions and many others within “Sky Dreamers” provide compelling visual demonstrations of a phenomenon long proposed by some paleoanthropologists and cognitive scientists. According to this theory, humans created tools, which in turn triggered the requisite behavioral and evolutionary changes conducive to further tool use, in a kind of feedback loop whereby each essentially “made” the other. In this view one could argue that while we made tools, tools also made us, who in turn improved upon the former, in a chain of cause and effect extending from pre-history to the present.
In this case, we have the floodlit Moon, that mysteriously inspirational lure hanging in the sky throughout human history; then the first pre-photographic observations of it by Galileo starting 400 years ago, which were accompanied by drawings and maps; then photographic astronomy and the mass reproduction of images, which is where “Sky Dreamers” comes in, and which brought to the wider public the irrefutable reality that another world orbits our own; and then finally the ultimately successful effort to reach that place. Of course it’s not surprising that such comparatively new and potent tools in the human arsenal as photography and film can be seen to have accelerated such processes: apart from constituting a significant instrument in its own right, photography documents the larger rise of an increasingly technology-based, information-mediated civilization.
To put it another way, the medium can’t fail to be the message when the medium’s chief focus is a documentation of its own rise, be that literal or figurative. A remarkable photograph-of-a-photograph – a 1972 picture taken by Apollo 16 astronaut Charles Duke of a snapshot of his family that he has deposited, in a clear plastic bag, on the dusty surface of the moon – both literalizes and underlines this self-referentiality. So do the hauntingly inadvertent self-portraits taken by most of the moonwalking astronauts by the simply device of photographing their crewmates; these shots invariably also captured their own reflections in their counterpart’s helmets.
In the latter category of pictures, which have become so familiar as to make it difficult to consider what their initial impact must have been, the moonwalking astronauts are actually faceless, their features safely shielded from the harsh sun by reflective glass. Instead of eyes returning our gaze we see reflected fisheye views documenting exactly what these astronauts were seeing at the moment the pictures were taken. In film terminology, their POV’s have obscured their faces.[5] In “Sky Dreamers” the most famous of these shots, a portrait of Buzz Aldrin taken by Neil Armstrong (containing, again, an inadvertent self-portrait by Armstrong in Aldrin’s helmet), itself appears on a kitschy 3-D postcard, as if to underline how ubiquitous the image became in the popular culture of the day.
The evolutionary phases documented in the exhibition, which as we’ve seen include both figurative steps towards and literal steps on the moon, contain a fascinating sub-set of fictional (or more accurately, science-fictional) images as well. And here is another place where the rehearsal part of the discovery-reification-rehearsal chain of cause and effect can come into decisive play. There is no more poetic or profound a visual illustration of exactly the phenomenon of tool-use expanding human consciousness than the astonishing jump cut between the flung bone weapon of a prehistoric man-ape and the orbiting spacecraft of 21stcentury Earthly civilization that links the first and second parts of Stanley Kubrick’s 1968 masterpiece 2001: A Space Odyssey. (A poster for the film, centering on space artist Robert McCall’s painting of 2001’s wheel-shaped space station, is on view in the exhibition.)
It’s impossible to overestimate 2001’s influence on a generation already primed to take seriously the possibility of large-scale human expansion off the Earth due to the rapid-fire series of events that had unfolded since the advent of human spaceflight only seven years before the film’s release. (Yuri Gagarin’s first flight into space took place in April 12, 1961; 2001 was released in April of 1968.) These events included John Glenn’s first US orbital flight in February of 1962 (a picture of Glenn lecturing in front of a large American flag can be seen in the show); the first woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova (visible smiling in her CCCP helmet, though she reportedly didn’t have an easy flight in Vostok 6 in June of 1963); the first orbital rendezvous, between two Gemini capsules, in 1965 (“Sky Dreamers” possesses a picture of the event signed by astronauts Willy Shirra and Tom Stafford, who crewed one of the two capsules), and so forth.
In fact reflections of space exploration in the arts, and specifically in film, may have been even more influential in suggesting a possibility of civilizational expansion off the Earth than actual spaceflight. 2009’s Avatar, in which human colonies on planets of other star systems are depicted as well established, is only the most successful latter day example. Four decades previously, 2001 inaugurated the genre of films in which human spaceflight is routine. Famously opening with a stunning sequence of the Earth rising over the moon, a sight heralded by the pounding drums of Richard Strauss’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 2001’s prediction of the transformative impact of this vista actually predated human experience of it by ten months: the first Earthrise photographs taken by human hands were exposed when Apollo 8 orbited the Moon ten times in December of 1968.[6] Kubrick and his collaborator Arthur C. Clarke correctly intuited that such a sight would possess an unprecedented power for a species that until that month had never traveled higher than a few miles above the home planet’s surface. It’s no exaggeration to say that Apollo 8’s Earthrise image transformed humanity’s sense of its position within the cosmos; the photograph remains a kind of secular-scientific icon.
While 2001’s depiction of a turn-of-the-century space-faring civilization with populous lunar colonies and manned exploratory missions to the planets proved erroneous, the plausibility of its depictions continue to provoke, and many of its predictions did in fact come true. A somewhat beefier version of 2001’s pencil-thin space-plane was in fact constructed in the late 1970’s, and that Space Shuttle is only being retired later this year. The space station that it helped construct, meanwhile, thought not as massive as 2001’s or as capable of providing artificial gravity, is now nearly complete.[7]
“Sky Dreamers” comes replete with the visual record of bodies in motion. Human beings float in balloons, hurtle through the clouds in various aircraft, and finally float in the induced zero gravity of training aircraft and the longer-term weightlessness of orbital and trans-lunar flight. But some of its most significant images were taken far from any air- or spacecraft, and document phenomena far less immediately kinetic – bodies, in fact, of seemingly static grandeur. Interspersed throughout the exhibition’s last quarter are a series of images of such truly deep space phenomena as distant nebulae and galaxies, all taken by the great Earth based observatories. (We also see some of the instruments involved, including the giant 200-inch Hale Telescope photographed in 1949, the year it saw “first light.”)
In far less immediately sensational but certainly no less significant ways than Apollo’s Earthrise images, photography-based astronomy began to revolutionize our understanding of our position within an echoingly vast universe starting in the 1880’s. When combined with the ever-larger resolving power of large telescopes, the long time exposures that astronomical photography afforded permitted unprecedented views into space-time.
The dazzling chain of discoveries that photographic astronomy has unveiled thus began a good two decades before powered flight. The birth of photography is typically understood to have been the unveiling, by the French Academy of Sciences, of artist and chemist Louis Daguerre’s Daguerreotype process in January of 1839. The first astronomical photograph came soon after that announcement. Daguerre owed the adoption and promotion of his process by the Academy to its member Francois Arago, a well-known mathematician, physicist, astronomer, and politician. Soon after the announcement, Arago arranged to bring a couple of scientists over to watch Daguerre at work. Since it was evening, Daguerre decided to try to make a daguerreotype of the moon. When Daguerre finally developed the plate, he discovered that the moon was blurred due to the long exposure time, and he considered the plate a failure. (The photo was soon lost due to a fire in 1839 that destroyed most of Daguerre’s equipment and early work.)
Daguerre’s experience underlines why photography didn’t have a large role to play in astronomy until the 1880’s, when emulsions had become sensitive enough that stars were routinely being discovered using photographic techniques. Ever since then, almost all astronomical discoveries were the result of the marriage of the telescope and photography. Because motor drives can turn telescopes to compensate for the motion of the Earth, long duration astro-photography enables the patient accumulation of interstellar and intergalactic photons, revealing innumerable objects invisible to the human eye even when assisted by the largest telescope. (The more sensitive CCD, or charge-coupled device, replaced classical photographic plates in professional astronomy before the turn of the century. This same device enabled the digital photography revolution of the last decade.)
One of the more abstract of the images to be seen in “Sky Dreamers” is a star-speckled grid; visible in negative, with black dots on a white background, it is Plate 1316 of a 1905 star atlas produced by German astronomer Max Wolf and Austrian astronomer Johann Palisa. A pioneer of what would later become known as astrophotography, Wolf discovered a record-breaking 248 asteroids using plate-based photography, and he also discerned the dim red dwarf star Wolf 369, now thought to be one of the closest stars to our solar system. (While it’s impossible to attempt a quantification of the profound shifts on our cosmological models enabled by photographic astronomy in a text of this length, we can summarize their impact on popular culture simply by quoting the opening lines of George Lucas’s Star Wars franchise, which would have been inconceivable without them: “A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away.”)
Of all the alpha-omega linkages established by “Sky Dreamers” across the more than two centuries it documents (because the exhibition’s first image isn’t a photograph at all, but rather artist’s depictions of a Montgolfier balloon dating back to 1783 – less than a decade after American independence), none is more provocative in its implications than the fact that its omega end is dominated by nine photographs taken by robotic spacecraft. Tellingly enough, as with contemporary ground-based astronomical image-making we have here moved from photography produced using traditional chemical development processes, which offer a kind of simulacrum of life’s organic chemistry, to images assembled from digital data fired across the breadth of the Solar System in chains of zeroes and ones. (One of these, “Global Dust Storm on Mars,” itself constitutes an assemblage of more than 60 individual Viking Orbiter images and comes from my own book and exhibition project, Beyond: Visions of the Interplanetary Probes.)
With such images we’ve arrived at what may prove to be the end of the remarkable stage of human and technological evolution documented in “Sky Dreamers,” and the beginnings of a next. As the exhibition’s final pictures make clear, we’re already living in an era in which our automated explorers – avatars, literally, of our collective purposes – routinely go where no-one has gone before, taking all the risks, absorbing all the radiation, and transmitting photographs and other data back. In a next great evolutionary stage, our current position as ghosts in the machinery – comfortably Earth-based humans, that is, able to gaze through the portholes of our exceedingly far-flung exploration machines – may become literalized. In this vision of ultimate futurity, our consciousness, our very souls, may one day be given a choice of making a kind of assisted transubstantiation, thereby achieving near-immortality by being effectively uploaded into compound creations of soul and spacecraft. With the prospect of roaming the stars as a lure, not to mention a radical extension of our conscious existence at the end of our natural lives, there might be innumerable takers of such a questionable proposition.
Should such a scenario ever unfold, the long reciprocal parallel evolution of human and tool would finally end with a kind of cosmic Hegelian synthesis – an ultimate coda to The Phenomenology of Spirit. We would then have completed the long terrestrial phase of our transition from “the sea of salt to the sea of stars,” as Arthur C. Clarke once put it. Such a radically transformative expansion of consciousness into an immeasurably vast cosmos, were it to happen, would signify that the long upward trajectory documented in “Sky Dreamers” had achieved its absolute vertiginous apex.
[1] Daniels, a member of the Kill Devil Hills Life-Saving Station, was no photographer, however – in fact this is the only photograph he is known to have taken. Conscious of the necessity of good documentation, Orville Wright had pre-positioned the camera and instructed Daniels to squeeze the bulb triggering the shutter at the right moment.
[2] Clearly digital manipulation has altered our understanding of photography immeasurably in the last decade or more, and even prior to that some totalitarian regimes, among other actors, brought photographic manipulation to a high art. But certainly with scientific photography, including astronomy, and also photography conducted in controlled circumstances or with multiple corroborative camera present, photographic evidence is still largely taken as close to incontrovertible.
[3] These were not the first photographs from the surface of another sphere, however: the Soviet Luna 9 probe had landed five months previously, on February 3rd, 1966, accomplishing the first survivable landing by a spacecraft on the surface of another celestial body and the first extraterrestrial surface photographs as well.
[4] In an entertaining essay titled “Live from the Moon: The Societal Impact of Apollo,” spaceflight historian Andrew Chaiken quotes Norman Mailer on the subject: “It would take criminals and confidence men mightier, more trustworthy and more resourceful than anything in this century or the ones before. Merely to conceive of such men was the surest way to know the event was not staged.” [Norman Mailer, Of a Fire on the Moon (Boston: Little Brown, 1970) pg.130, cited in Societal Impact of Spaceflight, Steven J. Dick and Roger D. Launis, editors (Washington, NASA Office of External Relations History Division, 2007), pg. 64.] Chaiken follows that by quoting Neil Armstrong as having commented simply that “It would have been harder to fake it than to do it” in a personal communication in 2003.
[5] POV being shorthand for “point of view” shot.
[6] Both US and Soviet robotic missions had sent black and white images of the sight back to Earth previously, however.
[7] Fans of the predictive powers and continuing validity of 2001 will find it interesting that the ultra-thin touch screen tablet computer used by the Jupiter-bound astronauts in the film has finally achieved commercial release with the Apple iPad, nine years after it was supposed to have been in regular use.
KINETIKON PICTURES, June 2. 2010
THE ARTIST IS PRESENT: MARINA ABRAMOVIC AT MOMA
By MICHAEL BENSON
-
To witness the exhibition “Marina Abramovic: The Artist is Present” at the Museum of Modern Art – the institution’s first major performance art retrospective – is to experience both the ultimate victory and the last gasp of Titoism. A 40-year retrospective look at Abramovic’s work, it couldn’t be anything other than the zenith of her career, a kind of ultimate, brilliantly-lit endorsement by the US art world’s inner-circle nomenklatura. And as a gilded platform for her work, in which videos and stills of her original events have here been interlarded with “reperformances” by younger collaborators, the show was a weird compound creation—a retrospective centering on a live event (the artist is in fact present); a look back staffed by naked young bodies; and all in all, a remarkable sight for those accustomed to MOMA’s usually more decorous halls.
It was also, unmistakably, an Event. Because whatever you think about Abramovic’s gestures, some of which are as suffused with self-absorption as Rembrandt’s canvases are with dark tones, they’re undeniably worthy of attention. Equally undeniably, there’s something undeniable about them, if I can put it that way.
How does this represent a victory for Titoism? Let’s set aside that Abramovic continues to identify herself as a Yugoslav, making her almost as rare a bird as the vanished Dodo. Let’s set aside, also, the hagiolatry lurking behind the scale of the gigantic black and white photo of the artist which stands at least 8 meters high at the entrance of the show, looking astonishingly like a latter-day manifestation of communist-era personality cults. (Is it possible that Abramovic doesn’t recognize this?)
As this retrospective eventually made clear, the Yugoslav regime reacted to the unrestful events of Europe in 1968 in a way diametrically opposite that of kindred regimes elsewhere in Eastern Europe. It’s difficult to imagine the authorities of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary or Romania reacting to the arrival of what could only be described as radical ideas among their young people (even if “only” within the context of art) with anything other than consternation, surveillance, intimidation, and sometimes, arrest and prison time. To take one of many examples, the rock band Plastic People of the Universe formed in Prague within months of the Soviet Invasion in 1968. But it didn’t take long for them to be forced into the underground and forbidden to perform, with some of their members sentenced to prison terms.
At first, and directly proximate to that gigantic portrait of a serenely self-suffused Abramovic, MOMA’s curators attempted with words on the wall to position her as belonging to a quasi-dissident tradition. After reading that she is a pioneer of performance art, which is indubitable, viewers were informed “In the 1970’s she introduced her body as the object, subject, and medium of her work, starting with a series of performances antithetical to the political climate of socialist Yugoslavia.”
While this is true as far as it goes, you could say the same thing about the radical art experiments taking place at more or less the same time in the United States, the UK, France, and other western countries, sometimes with more dire consequences than Abramovic ever had to contend with. In fact if you take even a cursory look at the history of New York City’s Living Theater, a radically experimental theater group founded in 1947 by actor Judith Malina and painter-poet Julian Beck, you will discover a history of arrests and harassment by the authorities, particularly in the 1960s and 1970’s, either on trumped-up charges of tax evasion or equally ludicrous accusations of “indecent exposure” – as though they were producing pornography, not art.
Contrast this with Abramovic’s work, which was also frequently conducted unclothed. By the time visitors to the MOMA show passed the text quoted above and entered the first gallery room, there was no hiding that many of her most radical gestures took place unmolested and in full public view in Belgrade. Some, in fact, unfolded in a student cultural center converted for that purpose by the Titoist regime from a police barracks – talk about symbolism! – after student protests in 1968. Fast forward, then, to 2010 and New York City. What we have had, from March 14 to May 31, was an implicit continuity between that evaporated Yugoslavia and MOMA, in which a first stage provided and subsidized by a vanished regime extends – voila! – trans-Atlantic four decades later, having dissolved long since in its home country, now becoming part and parcel of MOMA’s polished floors. From nomenklatura to nomenklatura. Call it metempsychosis.
In Abramovic’s 1974 performance “Rhythm 5,” which unfolded on the ground of the courtyard behind the Student Cultural Center, the artist drenched a large wooden five-pointed star shape with 100 liters of auto gas. Here’s what followed, in her words:
I set fire to the star. I walk around it. I cut my hair and throw the clumps into each point of the star. I cut my toe-nails and throw the clippings into each point of the star. I walk into the star and lie down on the empty surface. Lying down, I fail to notice that the flames have used up all the oxygen. I lose consciousness. The viewers do not notice, because I am supine. When a flame touches my leg and I still show no reaction, two viewers come into the star and carry me out of it. I am confronted with my physical limitations, the performance is cut short.
A number of her performances end this way – they are “cut short” for one reason or another, either due to “physical limitations” or to avoid violence. When I saw a DVD of “Rhythm 5” at MOMA, I pictured the Marshall chuckling to himself somewhere else in Belgrade; Dedinje, for example. Seated in a chair rife with gold braid, he has a Cuban cigar in one hand and snifter of cognac in the other. Perhaps he is informed, days later or even on that very evening, that this event by the daughter of two Partisan heroes centered on a five pointed star, the very symbol of Communism. His chuckle turns into open laughter.
It isn’t malicious in the least, this laughter; rather it’s suffused with enjoyment at the skill with which he’s playing his own game.
Because in providing a sand-box for the kids to play in, in effect, he has achieved so much at one stroke. He’s exposed neighboring Socialist regimes as fraudulent and tremulous. He’s simultaneously co-opted and channeled a stream of energy on the part of “his” young people that, if overtly opposed by the state, could in fact have proven dangerous. And not least, he’s proven worthy of both Western open-society admiration (look, he doesn’t throw them in jail – he gives them a student cultural center!) and that of his own citizens (for the same reason). It’s brilliant, and five decades later, we have a self-consciously “Yugoslav” artist endorsed and enshrined for all to see in the central crown jewel of all contemporary art museums.
A few years ago another major New York museum, this time the Guggenheim, got this dynamic precisely wrong at their Abramovic retrospective; you could say they bought the wrong party line. Under a photo of “Rhythm 5” on their website, we read to this day Nancy Spector discussing an artist who, as she may not have been entirely aware, came and went as she pleased, commuting from Belgrade to Paris, performing with equal ease in Yugoslavia or the rest of the world. “Though personal in origin,” writes Spector, “the explosive force of Abramovic’s art spoke to a generation in Yugoslavia undergoing the tightening control of Communist rule.”
If this is tightening, one is entitled to ask, bring on the straight jacket! None of which is to diminish the magnitude of Abramovic’s achievements. To walk through the many halls at MOMA representing her life’s work was to encounter a creative force both prolific and consistently provocative, even if the State felt no need to rise to the occasion. It could also be an experience of nostalgia, not of the Yugonostalgic kind – after all, most of her work was conducted abroad, despite the observations above – but rather for a vanished era of 1960’s and 1970’s experimentation. It was a highly fertile period long since buried under waves of subsequently defunct “-isms,” with even post-Modernism expiring on top of the heap well before the turn of the century.
There’s an eerie quality to the recreations of some of her work, which were staffed by a committed group of 36 people trained by Abramovic in what NY performance artist Laurie Anderson recently called “Marina boot camp” in the countryside north of New York City. While these restagings couldn’t recapture the social moment the original works were made within, they do possess their own power. Visitors seeking to move from the first gallery room to the second could chose to pass between a pair of closely positioned naked bodies, for example – a restaging of one of many pieces represented at MOMA that were taken from the decade-plus collaboration between Abramovic and the German artist Frank Uwe Laysiepen, or Ulay. Their 1977 piece “Imponderabilia,” staged in the Galleria Comunale d’Arte Moderna in Bologna, is also best described in Abramovic’s words:
Naked we stand opposite each other in the museum entrance. The public entering the museum has to turn sideways to move through the limited space between us. Everyone wanting to get past has to choose one of us.
And there they were, at MOMA, not Abramovic and Ulay at the narrow doorway but two naked women (though at other times it was a man and a woman, as in the original; shifts rotate throughout the day). Passing between them provided a frisson of reality—a radically opposite sensation from the cybernetic virtuality of so much contemporary art. Elsewhere in the show, a naked man lay under a human skeleton, with the (artificial, we’re told) skeleton “respirating” along with its still-living partner (originally in a 1995 video called “Cleaning the Mirror II,” it was restaged in 2005 as “Nude with Skeleton.” Both times Abramovic provided the living component of the macabre pair).
Another gallery presented a startling sight: a young woman, entirely naked, arms outstretched in a cruciform shape, essentially mounted on the wall like an enlarged butterfly specimen. On closer look, it was apparent that she was seated on an almost invisible bicycle seat, but because her legs descended on either side of it she seemed suspended in mid-air, staring straight forward, her arms unsupported in what clearly must take an enormous effort. (When I described her as being in a “crucifix position” to MOMA press representative Daniela Stigh, who I had called to find out the title of the piece, I was told that “she [Abramovic] didn’t mean it to be explicitly a crucifix, though of course many interpretations exist.” Well, ok! Glad we sorted that out. Called “Luminosity,” the piece was first staged in 1997, with Abramovic, of course, in the starring role.)
As one may expect, not just from the name of the show and the gigantic personality-cult photo at the entrance (titled “Portrait with Flowers,” 2009), the centerpiece of “The Artist is Present” was in fact the Artist, indubitably Present. Clad in a bright red gown, at least on the day I went, illuminated by four vast film lights shining through diffusion gels, Abramovic was seated at a table across from a chair in which any visitor was invited to sit for as long as he or she wishes—during which time the Artist gazed serenely into their eyes. And she was so seated for every day of the show’s 10-week run; seated, in fact, for what we are told was 700 hours, in what’s being billed the longest-running performance piece ever staged. (See it, live, at http://moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2010/marinaabramovic/)
Despite featuring the Artist in present tense, this center-piece was also a restaging or reinterpretation of a collaborative work first performed with Ulay in 22 cities between 1981-1987, under the title “Night Sea Crossing.” In the original, which was performed about 90 times, it was Ulay and his lover Abramovic who gazed into each other’s eyes, for hour after hour—until pain or exhaustion forced them to stop. In 1988, evidently for much the same reason, the couple broke up after twelve years of intense collaboration. Their final performance involved walking towards each other from opposite end of the Great Wall of China, he starting from the Gobi Desert and she from the Yellow Sea. Three months after starting this bipolar journey, they met for the last time and parted ways. Since then, her career has prospered, while he has largely vanished from the scene – though he did have a recent retrospective at the SKUC gallery in Ljubljana, Slovenia, curated by Tevz Logar.
When I arrived for the preview opening of “The Artist is Present” in March, Abramovic had already been sitting at her table for several hours, and a line had formed of people intent on pulling up a chair across from her. But three hours previously the crowd had been much sparser. As New York-based Bosnian-American artist Shoba Seric described it, around that time a tall man with a frazzled beard and dark clothing entered the vast atrium space in which Abramovic will sit for the next two and a half months. Striding over on long legs, he eased himself down in the chair opposite the Artist. It was Frank Uwe Laysiepen, a.k.a. Ulay. After a moment of recognition, Abramovic began to weep. Reaching across the table, she grasped his hands. He soon rose and vanished into the growing crowd. Her 700 hours of sitting had begun.
THE INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE (OP-ED), January 27. 2010
LET'S BUILD A STAIRWAY TO MARS
Op-Ed Contributor
By MICHAEL BENSON
-
Human space flight is at a tipping point. Next September, after 29 years of flights, the Space Shuttle is scheduled to be launched for the last time. The future of U.S. crewed missions is currently being reviewed at the highest levels of the Obama administration, with a decision expected early next month.
This follows the delivery in October of a rather bleak reassessment of the activity by an expert commission led by Norman Augustine, the former Lockheed Martin CEO. Its verdict was that without an increase in funding, U.S. crewed space flight “appears to be on an unsustainable trajectory.”
It is inconceivable that the United States, the leading spacefaring nation, will stop sending astronauts into space. But if flagging public interest in their work is ever to be revived, the Obama administration needs to articulate a bold vision capable of relegitimizing crewed missions, and then back it with real money.
The only credible reason to continue is to make astronauts true explorers again. A revivified program would send them on missions into deep space for the first time in decades, and it should include substantial international participation, allowing the sharing of costs.
In the nearly 40 years since Apollo 17 returned from the Moon in December 1972, no human being has traveled further from Earth than a car can drive on its surface in only a few hours. For all its virtues, the highest the Shuttle ever flew is about 385 miles.
By contrast even the comparatively primitive two-person Gemini spacecraft of the mid-60s achieved a maximum altitude of 850 miles — more than twice as high.
As for the International Space Station (ISS), at about 210 miles above Earth it’s so low that it has to be periodically boosted higher because its orbit is perpetually decaying due to residual atmospheric drag. And it flies, of course, in circles — with no destination.
For all the engineering genius and astronaut skill involved, it is hard to label missions that never leave the mouth of their harbor true exploration, and public interest in the activities of the astronaut corps has largely waned since Apollo.
While altitude records and hard destinations don’t necessarily need to be the goals — the space station is arguably useful both to rehearse international cooperation in space and to research long-duration space flight in preparation for actually going somewhere — the end of the shuttle program presents a clear opportunity for a new human mission beyond Earth.
Of the three options seriously considered by the Augustine Committee, the one that makes the most sense involves charting what it calls a “flexible path” to Mars.
In this scenario, a series of increasingly daring deep space missions to intermediate destinations, such as near-Earth asteroids, will allow the development of technologies and capabilities necessary for an eventual crewed landing on Mars later in the century. A return to the Moon is not excluded — spacecraft intended to explore Mars could eventually be tested there, for example — but the Moon would not be the main destination.
As long as the eventual exploration of Mars remains a firm goal, this graduated approach has a number of virtues. It initially avoids the great expense associated with the development of a landing system for the Moon or Mars, thereby staying within a comparatively low annual budget boost for NASA of about $3 billion.
It permits the incremental development of increasingly sophisticated technologies, rather than the construction of a full-blown Moon or Mars trip architecture from the ground up. It potentially benefits from a deepening of existing international space cooperation, as demonstrated in the ISS project — which, apart from the United States, includes Canada, Europe, Russia and Japan. Most critically, it allows astronauts to boldly go where no one has gone before — a prerequisite for capturing the popular imagination, as the Star Trek franchise has always understood, but not necessarily NASA.
Apart from the excitement sure to be generated by long-duration crewed missions, there are excellent reasons to commit astronauts to the exploration of near-Earth asteroids.
In recent decades awareness has grown of the real danger these objects pose. As the dinosaurs discovered 65 million years ago, the impact on Earth of an asteroid of a diameter of one kilometer or greater would produce catastrophic effects. To date, almost a thousand such asteroids have been found — a figure thought to be a very low percentage of the total.
A crewed investigation of one or more asteroids would represent a significant advancement in our understanding of such objects, with one goal being to determine potential ways to deflect them from a dangerous trajectory.
Because asteroids have such slight gravity fields, their investigation wouldn’t require expensive landing craft. Instead, space-suited astronauts with rocket-propelled backpacks such as NASA has already tested could easily conduct detailed surveys.
Asteroids may be a worthwhile intermediate step on the way to Mars for another reason: they’re quite literally gold mines. For example, 433 Eros, the first asteroid ever discovered, is thought to have more gold, silver, zinc and other exploitable metals than could ever be mined from the Earth’s crust — all in a package only 34.4 × 11.2 × 11.2 kilometers in size.
The comity that such international missions could establish would be considerable. China, which has only recently demonstrated an ability to send people into space, has repeatedly expressed an interest in being included in the ISS program. (Its approaches were rebuffed by the Bush administration.)
A series of U.S.-led deep space missions that might included the Chinese as well as Canadians, Europeans and Japanese would be a truly meaningful expression of international cooperation and a significant antidote to centrifugal political forces back on Earth. They would also make it far easier to fund an ambitious Mars landing and exploration program later in the century.
The path to the planets, it seems, contains both dangers and opportunities. We should take it for both those reasons.
***
Michael Benson is the author, most recently, of “Far Out: A Space-Time Chronicle.”
THE WASHINGTON POST (OUTLOOK SECTION), July 13. 2008
SEND IT SOMEWHERE SPECIAL
Op-Ed Contributor
By MICHAEL BENSON
-
Consider the International Space Station, that marvel of incremental engineering. It has close to 15,000 cubic feet of livable space; 10 modules, or living and working areas; a Canadian robot arm that can repair the station from outside; and the capacity to keep five astronauts (including the occasional wealthy rubbernecking space tourist) in good health for long periods. It has gleaming, underused laboratories; its bathroom is fully repaired; and its exercycle is ready for vigorous mandatory workouts.
The only problem with this $156 billion manifestation of human genius — a project as large as a football field that has been called the single most expensive thing ever built — is that it’s still going nowhere at a very high rate of speed. And as a scientific research platform, it still has virtually no purpose and is accomplishing nothing.
I try not to write this cavalierly. But if the station’s goal is to conduct yet more research into the effects of zero gravity on human beings, well, there’s more than enough of that already salted away in Russian archives, based on the many years of weightlessness that cosmonauts heroically logged in a series of space stations throughout the 1970s, ’80s and ’90s. By now, ISS crews have also spent serious time in zero gravity. We know exactly what weightlessness does and how to counter some of its atrophying effects. (Cue shot of exercycle.)
And if the station’s purpose is to act as a “stepping stone” to places beyond — well, that metaphor, most recently used by NASA Administrator Michael Griffin is pure propaganda. As any student of celestial mechanics can tell you, if you want to go somewhere in space, the best policy is to go directly there and not stop along the way, because stopping is a waste of precious fuel, time and treasure. Which is a pretty good description of the ISS, parked as it is in constant low Earth orbit.
This is no doubt why, after the horrifying disintegration of the space shuttle Columbia in 2003, the Bush administration belatedly recognized that, if we’re going to spend all that money on manned spaceflight, we should justify the risks by actually sending our astronauts somewhere. So NASA is now developing a new generation of rockets and manned spacecraft. By 2020, the Constellation program is supposed to take astronauts beyond low Earth orbit for the first time since Apollo 17 returned from the moon in 1972. Yes, that’ll be almost 50 years. Where will they go? To the moon — the only place humans have already visited.
Which leads us right back to the expensively orbiting ISS. It hasn’t a fig-leaf’s role left. The moon is the new “stepping stone,” with Mars bruited as a next destination. Although NASA officials will never quite say so, their current attitude seems to be that the station is essentially a high-maintenance distraction, even a mistake. Their plan is to finish assembling the thing ASAP and hand the keys over to the Russians, Canadians, Europeans and Japanese, with minimal continuing U.S. involvement. This should happen by the shuttle’s mandatory retirement in 2010. Meanwhile, we’re still writing a lot of high-denomination checks and preparing the two remaining shuttles for risky flights to finish something we then plan to be largely rid of. This seems absurd. I have an alternative proposal:
Send the ISS somewhere.
The ISS, you see, is already an interplanetary spacecraft — at least potentially. It’s missing a drive system and a steerage module, but those are technicalities. Although it’s ungainly in appearance, it’s designed to be boosted periodically to a higher altitude by a shuttle, a Russian Soyuz or one of the upcoming new Constellation program Orion spacecraft. It could fairly easily be retrofitted for operations beyond low-Earth orbit. In principle, we could fly it almost anywhere within the inner solar system — to any place where it could still receive enough solar power to keep all its systems running.
It’s easy to predict what skeptics both inside and outside NASA will say to this idea. They’ll point out that the new Constellation program is already supposed to have at least the beginnings of interplanetary ability. They’ll say that the ISS needs to be resupplied too frequently for long missions. They’ll worry about the amount of propellant needed to push the ISS’s 1,040,000 pounds anywhere — not to mention bringing them all back.
There are good answers to all these objections. We’ll still need the new Constellation Ares boosters and Orion capsules — fortuitously, they can easily be adapted to a scenario in which the ISS becomes the living- area and lab core of an interplanetary spacecraft. The Ares V heavy-lift booster could easily send aloft the additional supplies and storage and drive modules necessary to make the ISS truly deep-space-worthy.
The Orion crew exploration module is designed to be ISS-compatible. It could serve as a guidance system and also use its own rocket engine to help boost and orient the interplanetary ISS. After remaining dormant for much of the one-year journey to, say, Mars, it could then be available to conduct independent operations while the ISS core orbited the Red Planet, or to investigate an asteroid near Earth, for instance.
But, the skeptics will say, the new Orion capsule’s engines wouldn’t be nearly enough; a spacecraft as large as the ISS would need its own drive system. Here, too, we’re in surprisingly good shape. The ISS is already in space; the amount of thrust it needs to go farther is a lot less than you might think. Moreover, a drive system doesn’t have to be based on chemical rockets. Over the past two decades, both the U.S. and Japanese programs have conducted highly successful tests in space of ion-drive systems. Unlike the necessarily impatient rockets we use to escape Earth’s gravity and reach orbit, these long-duration, low-thrust engines produce the kind of methodical acceleration (and deceleration) appropriate for travel once a spacecraft is already floating in zero gravity. They would be a perfect way to send the ISS on its way and bring it back to Earth again.
This leaves a lander. A lunar lander substantially larger than the spidery Apollo-era LEMs is currently on the drawing board. It’s not nearly as far along in development as the Ares booster and Orion spacecraft components of the Constellation program — which is a good thing. While I question the need to return to the moon in the first place, I wouldn’t exclude it as a possible destination, so I think we should modify the lander’s design to make it capable of touching down on either the moon or Mars and then returning to the ISS with samples for study in its laboratories. Such landers could also investigate the moon’s poles, where we think water may be present, or one of the near-Earth asteroids — which may have raw materials suitable for use by future generations of space explorers.
But, our skeptics will sputter, this will all cost far more money than the Constellation program. Who’ll pay for it?
Actually, it will in effect save all the money we’ve already spent on the ISS. And the station is already an international project, with substantial financial and technological input from the Russians, Canadians, Europeans and Japanese. In recent years, the Chinese, who have developed their own human spaceflight capabilities, have made repeated overtures to NASA, hoping to be let in on the ISS project. They’ve been unceremoniously rebuffed by the Bush administration, but a new administration may be more welcoming. An interplanetary ISS — the acronym now standing for International Space Ship — would be a truly international endeavor, with expenses shared among all participating nations.
How likely is any of this to happen? Not very. A lot depends on the flexibility of a NASA that hasn’t always been particularly welcoming to outside ideas. On the other hand, the agency also collaborates with outsiders all the time. So it’s not impossible. The reason the ISS went from being a purely American, Reagan-era project (“Space Station Freedom”) to one including the Russians and many other nations was a political decision by the Clinton administration. A similar political vision will be necessary here.
All the billions already spent on the space station would pay off — spectacularly — if this product of human ingenuity actually went somewhere and did something. But it would also serve as a compelling demonstration that we’re one species, living on one planet, and that we’re as capable of cooperating peacefully as we are at competing militaristically. Let’s begin the process of turning the ISS from an Earth-orbiting caterpillar into an interplanetary butterfly.
***
Michael Benson, the author of “Beyond: Visions of the Interplanetary Probes,” writes frequently on space science issues.
THE INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE (OP-ED PAGE), October 3. 2007
THE BEEPING BALL THAT LAUNCHED THE SPACE AGE
By MICHAEL BENSON
-
Sputnik at Fifty
Fifty years ago today, to the delight of many and the consternation of more than a few, the Soviet Union launched something like a silver volleyball with four swept-back antennas into Earth’s orbit.
That beeping sphere promptly became a symbol of that great rising wave in human technological capabilities that was cresting in the mid-20th century. (That it was in some ways also an extension of another revolution, the Great October one, was a circumstance that didn’t go unnoticed.)
Sputnik arrived well within the lifetimes of many who had witnessed the Wright brothers conduct the first heavier-than-air flight, and it triggered a massive new investment in scientific research and aerospace technologies in the United States. (Sputnik’s instant notoriety in American popular culture inspired San Francisco Chronicle writer Herb Caen to coin the term “beatnik” in an article on the Beat Generation less than a year later.)
The space race took human beings to the Moon only a decade later, when Apollo 8 circumnavigated our closest celestial companion in December 1968. Less than a year after that, the first human footprints were inscribed in lunar dust.
The Space Age proved somewhat more ephemeral, at least in the popular imagination. The last Moon landing was in 1972, after which NASA dropped its aspirations for human space flight to low Earth orbit and the Space Shuttle, a vehicle which flies a good deal lower than the Gemini missions of the mid-1960s. The final Moon landings were cancelled in part due to a decline in public interest, and in part because NASA wanted to concentrate on its reusable (and as it turned out, quite dangerous) space plane.
It was as though the Vikings, having conquered Iceland and Greenland and constructed the first European settlements in North America, then decided to keep their longboats piddling about safely within sight of Oslo harbor.
But the Vikings didn’t have robots. In fact, the explosion of technological innovation in the Space Age – and the resulting exponential expansion of our views of the universe and of our position within it – has continued in spectacular fashion.
Over the past two decades, it has produced quite a few results at least as impressive, if not quite as dramatic, as Neil Armstrong’s Moon landing in July 1969.
Robot explorers have visited every planet in the solar system save Pluto, which in any case was ignominiously downgraded from full planetary status last year and which will be visited by NASA’s low-budget New Horizons mission in 2015).
The findings of these missions include the remarkable discovery by the Galileo probe of the late ’90’s that Jupiter’s moon Europa almost certainly contains a vast ocean surfaced by a relatively thin global ice cap – something that raised the tantalizing prospect that life may have arisen underneath.
They also include recent radar observations by the Cassini mission to Saturn that indicate that the smoggy Saturnian moon Titan contains large polar lakes filled with something akin to lighter fluid, as well as observations by the Earth-orbiting Hubble Space Telescope of incipient solar systems within the Orion Nebula. The latter “proplyds,” each a disc of dust with a glowing coal at its center, call to mind a solar system “without form and void,” as the Book of Genesis has it, waiting to form into planets.
Add to this that fact that for more than three years now, NASA’s two remarkable solar-powered Mars Rovers continue to grind through sand storms and Red Planet winters, and one might be excused for thinking that deep space exploration is in excellent shape on Sputnik’s 50th anniversary.
Unfortunately, a less reassuring story is unfolding behind the scenes. NASA’s robotic deep-space missions, which have produced the major scientific discoveries of the space program, inevitably take many years of planning to get off the ground.
Yet in recent years funding for such flights has been cut back radically – by 25 percent, or $3 billion over the current five year period.
The reason NASA gives for this is that it has been mandated to return humans to the Moon, a far more expensive undertaking, and is currently developing a new generation of technologies designed to do that and then (at least, conceivably) take them onwards to Mars.
Inevitably, something had to give, and that something was robotic spaceflight. While a good case can be made for sending astronauts back on missions of exploration, this doesn’t have to involve gutting the agency’s science programs.
If the five decades that have elapsed since Sputnik’s first orbit tells us anything, it’s that the remarkable descendants of that silver sphere have been worthy emissaries of human curiosity – not to mention cost-effective harvesters of knowledge about our place in the universe.
***
Michael Benson, a writer and documentary filmmaker, is the author of “Beyond: Visions of the Interplanetary Probes.”
-
Not After a Surprise Round of Budget Cuts
In 1996, for the first time since Balboa spotted the shimmering Pacific from a high Panamanian hill in 1513, a vast new ocean was discovered — an ice-covered body of water that entirely envelops Jupiter’s enigmatic moon Europa. The divining of a huge extraterrestrial ocean in our very solar system seemed both improbable and fortuitous, as the robot Galileo — named after the astronomer who first discovered Jupiter’s four largest moons nearly 400 years ago — was the first spacecraft ever to orbit one of the outer planets.
Then just last month, the second outer-planets orbiter, Cassini, currently looping around Saturn, sent back headline news. Cassini scientists announced they’d spotted unmistakable evidence of liquid water venting from the south polar region of Saturn’s moon Enceladus.
Given the clear signs of organic compounds, sources of energy and liquid water on Europa, many believe life to be more likely there than on Mars. And preliminary analysis of Enceladus’s south pole indicates that it, too, may well have been warm enough, for long enough, that sub-surface water could have fostered life there.
In other words: Eureka! We’ve discovered not one, but two, potential extraterrestrial biospheres. Enceladus will now be a prime focus of Cassini’s attention for the rest of its mission, which should last many more years. And it would seem a no-brainer that NASA should be using its scientific and engineering talent to launch a mission dedicated to further exploring Europa. After all, finding life there wouldn’t just be one of the most monumental discoveries in human history; it could surely provide a massive boost to all our space exploration efforts. (Failing to find it, on the other hand, would give us something else to chew over: how a liquid water ocean could exist for millennia and not give rise to life.)
Given the stakes, and that NASA receives almost $17 billion a year for the specific purpose of exploring the cosmos — not to mention that the agency’s own mission statements emphasize the search for extraterrestrial life — we should probably be reading about such a mission right now, correct? Unfortunately, we’re not. NASA unveiled its 2006 budget with a sharp intake of breath in February, and among other things, it immediately became clear that the agency had canceled plans for a dedicated mission to Europa — for the third time in less than a decade.
To the consternation of scientists everywhere, the agency plans to slash its science budget, which covers deep space exploration, by a total of as much as 25 percent over this year and next, with a massive $3 billion cut in the projected budget over the next five years. If you cut off one-quarter of a table’s legs, it tends to fall down. And that means a lot of damage.
Among the broken crockery is NASA’s much-anticipated Terrestrial Planet Finder, a fascinating mission designed to discover possible abodes for life orbiting other stars. It is being “indefinitely deferred” — a crafty way of saying “canceled.” Also in fragments is the agency’s Space Interferometry Mission, a key project in the search for other planetary systems; it will be “delayed indefinitely.” These are among the missions the scientific community has had the highest hopes for, and has been gearing up to supply with personnel.
By effectively robbing its Science Directorate to the benefit of spaceflight involving astronauts, NASA is creating a catastrophe for American solar system and deep space exploration. For the past three decades, true space exploration, which is by far the most popular of NASA’s activities, has been conducted by the crewless missions of the Science Directorate.
If allowed to go forward, these cuts will result in the immediate and long-term loss of key scientific personnel. A generation of young people who could train to become planetary scientists and astronomers is in danger of moving on to other careers. And what’s at stake isn’t just American leadership in space science. Without a credible alternative (because the European Space Agency, for all its achievements, doesn’t have anything like NASA’s budget or experience), it’s the very future of such explorations.
So why are the cuts considered necessary? NASA officials point to the costs of developing a new Crew Exploration Vehicle, or CEV, as well as the higher-than-expected costs of the remaining years of the space shuttle program and the completion of the International Space Station. The shuttle program is clearly doomed, and while the space station may continue to be a destination for U.S. astronauts following its completion (to the tune of $100 billion), it will most likely be handed over to the Russians to manage. In short, NASA is making the inexplicable decision to transfer funds from highly popular, productive and cost-effective programs to extremely expensive ones of little scientific value that are scheduled for termination.
Although a good case can be made for continuing human spaceflight — particularly if astronauts are sent out of low Earth orbit to conduct true exploration for the first time in three decades — this doesn’t have to involve gutting NASA’s science programs. In fairness to agency Administrator Michael Griffin, he has been put in the impossible position of being asked to accomplish all these ambitious goals simultaneously and without a substantial budget increase. But since only six months ago he said that “not one thin dime” would be taken from the agency’s science programs to accommodate human spaceflight, it’s a bit much to hear him now characterize those warning of the dire effects of the proposed cuts as “hysterical.”
Something’s broken at NASA if such important and forward-looking goals as studying Europa’s ocean and searching for planets with signs of liquid water elsewhere in our galaxy are canceled in favor of programs that are clearly on their way out. Congress should direct the agency to restore its science programs, and it should establish a firewall protecting them from the fiscal demands of crewed spaceflight.
Yes, let’s send human beings into deep space again. But let’s also follow the water, investigate Europa and see what we can discover about extraterrestrial life. To do otherwise wouldn’t just be a bad mistake — it would violate NASA’s own stated reasons for existing.
***
Michael Benson is a science writer and the author of “Beyond: Visions of the Interplanetary Probes” (Abrams).
THE INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE (OP-ED PAGE), July 21. 2005
DON'T LOOK NOW, BUT EUROPE IS IN OUTER SPACE
Op-Ed Contributor
By MICHAEL BENSON
-
Feats of European Aerospace
LJUBLJANA, Slovenia — Predictably enough, the first flight of Airbus’s elephantine double-decker A380 “super-jumbo” was a major media event. But the continent’s recent achievements in the skies of other planets have been relatively unsung, although they provide clear evidence of a startlingly ambitious and vital new European capability – that of roaming across the solar system and studying its worlds.
Robotic spaceflight makes even the most daring conventional aviation look easy. It’s notoriously unforgiving of even the smallest mistakes. Mars in particular has been a problematic destination, with the vast majority of spacecraft sent there during the past four decades failing either before or on arrival.
So the success of Europe’s first interplanetary mission, Mars Express, which arrived safely in orbit of the Red Planet on Dec. 25, 2003, was certainly no given. And yet the spacecraft has been sending a steady stream of revelatory information from Mars for the last 20 months and looks set to continue doing so for the foreseeable future.
Among other things, Europe’s orbiter possesses a revolutionary stereo color camera system, which in early 2005 revealed what appears to be the dust-covered surface of a frozen Martian sea – one that may have been liquid only a few million years ago, which is very recently in geological terms.
Another tantalizing recent finding is being interpreted by some scientists as potential evidence of life there: the European spacecraft’s spectrometer discovered trace quantities of methane in the Martian atmosphere.
One possible source could be sub-surface organic activity. If so, it would have to be contemporary, because methane breaks down rapidly in sunlight, and therefore must have been vented into the atmosphere relatively recently. (The methane could also have been produced by non-biological processes; while this is a major step forward in Mars studies, it’s not yet confirmation of extraterrestrial life.)
Despite these undeniable successes, Mars Express’s achievements are almost entirely unknown to the public. Instead, it remembers the much-publicized failure of its tiny, British-built Beagle lander, which vanished without a trace when it plunged into the Martian atmosphere in 2003. But Beagle was a relatively small part of the mission, and its failure should not have overshadowed the fact that Europe’s first interplanetary spacecraft is operating flawlessly.
Another recent European space triumph – which did receive media coverage earlier this year – was the landing of ESA’s atmospheric probe, Huygens, on Saturn’s cloud-covered moon Titan. Like the Airbus A380 and Mars Express, Huygens was designed and built by a multilingual consortium of aerospace companies from across the continent.
It was the first landing on the moon of another planet, and because the nature of Titan’s surface was almost entirely unknown, it was also certainly one of the most daunting engineering challenges in the history of space exploration. The spacecraft functioned flawlessly, providing images and other data about this planet-sized world.
One reason why such achievements have received relatively little attention is that aerospace is by its very nature a multinational effort, whereas most European media remains largely focused on their own narrow national context.
Space exploration, after all, is a highly complex story and resistant to simplification, even if it also reveals unprecedented inter-European cooperation in the field of science and high technology.
Another reason for the lack of public awareness is that ESA’s public relations efforts largely lack the sophistication of NASA, the American space agency.
Although Mars Express daily sends large quantities of some of the best panoramic color pictures ever taken of another world back to Earth, ESAs only posts new ones on its Web site intermittently, and then at a comparatively low resolution.
Another current ESA mission, the SMART-1 lunar orbiter, is virtually invisible. Although it reached the Moon last November, ESA has posted only a miserly five pictures from the spacecraft.
By contrast, NASA immediately puts every shot taken by its two still-active Mars rovers on the internet, at their full resolution.
The result, of course, is that virtually no Europeans are aware that their continent – the birthplace of such space visionaries as Hermann Oberth, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky and Hermann Potocnik Noordung – has finally flown its own spacecraft to the moon, Mars and a distant Saturnian moon.
These failings in outreach should not be difficult to rectify. For now, they should not be allowed to obscure the fact that Europe has become a spacefaring civilization, with an aerospace industry that has very much come of age.
THE INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE (OP-ED PAGE), April 2. 2005
WILL NASA PUT AN END TO ASTRONOMY'S GOLDEN AGE
Op-Ed Contributor
By MICHAEL BENSON
-
LJUBLJANA, Slovenia — In October 2003, the sun exploded with some of the most violent eruptions on record, spewing billions of tons of particles and gases into the solar system. These expulsions, which interfered with telecommunications on Earth and dosed the two astronauts in the International Space Station with multiple X-rays’ worth of radiation, gave clear evidence that the sun is nearing the end of a 22-year magnetic cycle.
A great deal was learned about these manifestations of solar rage because of a network of American spacecraft, all yoked together in a NASA division called the Earth-Sun System, which monitors the sun’s activity across the solar system. The very existence of such a network is one of those largely unsung achievements that confirm that we’re living in astronomy’s golden age.
Unfortunately, both the hard-won achievements and the future promise of this age are threatened by a shift by the United States toward a focus on crewed space missions over robotic ones, even though the latter have proved their worth, and cost-effectiveness, many times over.
An inspiring example of that are the most distant spacecraft in the Earth-Sun System, the twin Voyagers that provided us with the first detailed look at Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, as well as their moons and rings, in the late 1970s and through the 1980s. Now 11 billion and 14 billion kilometers (6.8 and 8.7 billion miles) away, the Voyagers are at the very edge of the sun’s domain; they’re the most distant artifacts of human civilization. When the solar eruptions finally reached Voyager 2 last April, its instruments determined that they had both merged and slowed. Thanks to the Voyagers and other spacecraft, we now know far more about how these “coronal mass ejections” form and dissipate. But this process isn’t over: The sun continues to rumble with unusual activity, and we’re in the excellent position of being able to monitor it with great precision.
As this story makes clear, although the Voyagers have been in flight for almost 30 years, they haven’t been kept operational out of nostalgia. Both have fully functional cosmic-ray, plasma-wave and charged-particle detectors, as well as other scientific instruments, and they have enough power to run them until at least 2020.
And they’re beginning to report phenomena unlike any detected before: plasma-wave oscillations and energetic particle activity that may indicate that they’re entering the “bow shock” region where the sun’s wind collides with the thin gas between the stars. The Voyagers, in other words, are on the verge of becoming the first true interstellar spacecraft, and give every indication of providing discoveries just as important as their previous ones.
But although these astonishingly hardy machines remain well equipped to continue their mission, their supporters are having a hard time defending them in NASA these days. In January 2003, President George W. Bush unveiled his “vision for space exploration,” which is almost exclusively about human spaceflight, and specifically about sending people to the Moon and to Mars. While some of these goals are worthy ones, they didn’t come with a budget increase in keeping with their ambitions, and recently NASA quietly excised some of its longest-running robotic missions from this year’s budget – including the two Voyagers.
Some hold out hope that the incoming NASA administrator, Michael Griffin, will reverse this decision. But it’s hard to imagine Griffin, an ardent advocate of crewed spaceflight, doing so, at least in the current fiscal climate, without direct congressional intervention.
Along with the self-destructive decision to cancel a shuttle mission to maintain the Hubble Space Telescope, which will die in orbit within the next couple of years without servicing, the moves on the Voyagers and other Earth-Sun System spacecraft give clear indication that astronomy’s golden age is in danger of ending not with a bang, but with a series of whimpers – death by a thousand budget cuts.
KINETIKON PICTURES, February 1. 2005
A WORLD IN WORDS: EUROPA, THE OCEAN MOON
Book Review
By MICHAEL BENSON
-
Europa: The Ocean Moon
By Richard Greenberg
Springer-Praxis, 380 pages, $89.95
1.
Unlike the luminous sphere visible at the moment from about half of the Earth’s surface, the moons of other planets have had few opportunities to infiltrate human history. Largely unsuspected, entirely invisible, they were incapable of raising terrestrial tides, inspiring poetry, or triggering lunacy of any sort. This situation only started to change on the night of January 7th, 1610, when a certain Pisan-origin math professor took a homemade spyglass out into the Padua night and pointed it towards Jupiter. Shimmering but distinct through a thin layer of winter air and over 500 million miles of deep space, the planet revealed itself for the first time to human eyes as a sphere – a world in its own right. Galileo Galilei also noted three points of light strung out in a line along Jupiter’s equator. Their position intrigued him, but he had no reason to believe they were anything other than fortuitously positioned stars. By the next night, however, they’d not only changed their formation in relation to each other but, contrary to expectation, had tagged along with Jupiter as it moved through the sky in a westerly direction. A few nights later, a fourth bright star appeared. It too stayed in formation with the planet.
By January 15th Galileo had famously deduced that planetary bodies were revolving around Jupiter. He attempted to name them the “Medicean Stars,” after his patron Cosimo de Medici, but the name didn’t stick. They’re now the Galilean Satellites, with their individual names – Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto, in order of their distance from the planet – the result of a suggestion given to another early observer of Jupiter, German astronomer Simon Marius, by his countryman Johannes Kepler. Kepler thought they should be named after mythical Jupiter’s concubines. He also coined the term “satellites” to describe them.
Galileo’s discovery was of a particularly resounding cosmological significance because it provided persuasive evidence that Copernicus, and many centuries previously Aristarchus of Samos, was right: Given the evident dynamics of the Jovian system, it was now much more likely that the planets revolve around the sun, not the Earth, with only our own moon left to orbit us. When Galileo published his “Message from the Stars”[i] in Venice only two months later, terrestrial tides (or at least, academic and theological storms) were for the first time raised by moons much too far away to do so with their own gravity. Unnoticed among its other repercussions was the not uninteresting fact that the book became the first runaway international science best seller.
Although other similar objects were soon discovered in orbit of other planets, among extraterrestrial satellites it was the Galileans that held the most sway over human affairs for the next four hundred years. Apart from their revolutionary cosmological implications they were immediately seized upon for wholly practical reasons: their regular eclipses by Jupiter provided a way to create an absolute time standard. When compared with the local time at a given place on Earth, the Jovian clockwork could allow the measurement of the longitude of that position – something previously virtually impossible. While the instability of ships at sea made close observation of Jupiter’s moons impractical for maritime navigation, the method worked well enough on land, and Galileo’s discovery soon helped revolutionize cartography.[ii]
And their influence didn’t stop there. Only 60 years after their discovery those four metronomic glints provided the first proof that the speed of light, contrary to previous supposition, was both finite and measurable. While conducting a campaign of observations of Jupiter’s moons in 1671, Dutch astronomer Ole Rømer noticed puzzling discrepancies in the timings of their eclipses. At the Paris Observatory, Italian astronomer Giovanni Domenico Cassini had earlier noted the same phenomenon and tentatively attributed it to light having a finite speed. But he didn’t pursue the hypothesis, and when Rømer joined him as his assistant a couple years later, he added his own observations to Cassini’s – and saw that the times between eclipses shortened when the Earth was on the same side of the sun as Jupiter, and lengthened as the two planets drew further away from each other. On November 9, 1676, he accurately predicted a ten-minute delay in the eclipse of Jupiter’s innermost moon, Io. It was the first measurement of a universal quantity ever made.[iii]
Having helped unseat humanity from the center of all creation, enabled the production of unprecedentedly accurate terrestrial maps, and illustrated the fundamental speed limit of the cosmos, Jupiter’s moons essentially desisted from playing more of a role in our evolving understanding of the universe until about three hundred years after Rømer, when the advent of spaceflight created an explosion of information no less revolutionary than that triggered when Galileo first tilted his revolutionary vision machine at the sky. Latter-day iterations of those lenses could now be vaulted through space to encounter objects once only discernable as points of light wavering in our planet’s restless atmosphere.
Fairly crude Earth-based photometric and spectroscopic observations of Jupiter’s four Galilean satellites conducted in the 1960’s and 70’s had indicated that the outer three were surfaced by water ice, with the innermost apparently covered by an unknown reddish-orange material. But Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto only began to become distinct places to us in 1979, when the twin Voyager missions flew past Jupiter and sent back the first high-resolution pictures of its moons.[iv] The Voyagers revealed the Jovian archipelago to be far more complex, dynamic and variegated than previously thought likely.
2.
Which is not to say that absolutely no prior suspicions regarding Jupiter’s satellites had found their way into print, as Richard Greenberg, a professor at the University of Arizona’s Lunar and Planetary Sciences Laboratory—one of the nation’s leading outposts of those contemplating things extraterrestrial—recounts in his magisterial new book Europa: The Ocean Moon. In a legendarily prescient paper published in Science magazine just before Voyager-1 encountered Jupiter in 1979, Greenberg recounts, University of California physics professor Stanton Peale argued that deviations in the orbits of the inner three Jovian moons would inevitably result in tidally-generated heat within them, with most of it concentrated in Io and Europa, the inner two. Io in particular, Peale argued, would most likely prove to be a volcanic world with a largely molten interior. Less than a week later, Voyager’s photographs revealed multiple towering volcanic plumes extending up to three hundred kilometers from Io’s yellow-orange surface. The first active geological processes ever observed on another world, they provided one of the most spectacular – and certainly the most spectacularly well-timed – proof in the history of planetary science.
The two peripatetic Voyagers also photographed Greenberg’s subject, Europa, though from a greater distance than Io. Their pictures were good enough to reveal that Jupiter’s second large satellite, while also outstandingly odd, couldn’t have been more different from its volcanic sister moon. Europa possesses a far more subdued, monochromatic face, an icy crust both weirdly fissured and highly reflective, with very little surface relief evident. Despite its global web of tangled lines, in fact, the moon appeared to be virtually cue ball smooth in the Voyager photographs. On closer inspection, however, the pictures revealed a significant similarity with Io: very few asteroidal or cometary impact craters were visible. This indicated that Europa’s surface was quite young in geological terms – evidence that the tidal energies predicted by Stanton Peale might be having an effect here as well. And given the example of nearby Io, sub-surface volcanism couldn’t be discounted on Europa, either – perhaps hidden by a liquid ocean under what was understood to be water ice. Or so, anyway, did the more adventurous planetary scientists speculate.
Apart from the apparent youth and smoothness of the surface, however, hard evidence for such an ocean was lacking, and there was no way to take a closer look, either: both Voyagers whipped onwards towards Saturn on their gravity-assisted tour of the outer planets. Still, their Europa images arrived at about the same time that the “black smoker” ecosystems were discovered in the deep ocean floors of Earth. These teeming colonies of organisms are reliant on the hydrothermal energy pouring from submarine volcanic vents, and seemingly independent of the photosynthesis-based biosphere of the surface.[v] Europa thus quickly became the object of a debate regarding the possibility that an ocean might exist there, and that life could have arisen there.
Still, this was a highly theoretical debate, because it was tempered by some incontrovertible facts. Jupiter and its satellites are so far from the Sun’s fires that Europa’s surface temperature is exceedingly cold – an estimated –260 degrees Fahrenheit. Absent substantial indigenous heat, which (apart from the circumstantial evidence provided by its volcanic sister moon Io) couldn’t be proved either way with Voyager’s data, this should have been more than cold enough to freeze the putative Europan ocean down to its bedrock eons before humans learned how to launch cameras unto heaven. Accordingly, the possibility of liquid water there was dismissed by a plurality of planetary scientists.
This estimation changed almost at a stroke when a mission specifically dedicated to the study of Jupiter and its moons arrived there in December of 1995. NASA’s somewhat beleaguered, but functional Galileo Orbiter, which had suffered a serious in-flight technical malfunction that had nearly crippled its mission, was the first spacecraft to orbit one of the outer planets. Although its umbrella-shaped high-gain antenna had failed to unfold during its six-year flight, rendering the spacecraft incapable of high-volume communications with Earth, NASA engineers had devised an ingeniously ameliorative series of fixes. These enabled a much-reduced but still significant quantity of photographs and other data to be transmitted.[vi]
And it was in the nature of an orbital as opposed to a planetary fly-by mission that interesting features spotted during one pass of a Jovian moon could be returned to for closer inspection later – a major improvement on the hit-and-run Voyagers. Although its data-flow was a trickle compared to what might have been, Galileo’s great virtue was its capacity to return, repeatedly, to points of interest over the course of years.
This was fortunate, Greenberg recounts, because early Galileo passes of Europa in late 1996 and early 1997 revealed a sight unprecedented in the short history of space exploration. Regions of the surface were patched by regions of immobilized floes – places where the ice had apparently melted through and then been refrozen. Several of these regions were filled with tilted, rotated, or otherwise displaced pieces of crust –icebergs that had evidently rafted out of place due to some thermal process, and then been locked back into place as the crust reformed. A giddy sense of excitement began percolating through the planetary science community: Galileo’s Europa photographs immediately revived, in sensational fashion, the prospect that a liquid ocean could pullulate under the moon’s surface ice. They also revived the possibility that life might have evolved there.
All known life requires liquid water, energy sources, and organic materials. Given the estimated age of the moon’s surface, the melt-throughs photographed by Galileo had evidently occurred at some point in the geologically recent past. This was extremely significant. Eons of cometary impacts, not to mention a steady accumulation of second-hand smoke from sister moon Io’s volcanic plumes, were known to have deposited organic materials and chemical oxidants across Europa’s surface. But an interchange between its surface and ocean was thought to be required if a strong case for indigenous life was to be built. Galileo’s initial images, then, provided the necessary but not yet sufficient evidence for such an exchange – for all three of life’s requirements, in fact. While this didn’t yet prove anything, it certainly re-started the debate in a sensational fashion. Overnight Europa became “the sexiest planet in the solar system,” as Greenberg puts it.[vii]
Robot Galileo’s human namesake famously ran into a bit of trouble with the Inquisition when he insisted that all the evidence confirmed that the Earth, contrary to long-held belief, moved. In January of 1997 – 387 years to the month since Jupiter’s moons were discovered – the same Pope who’d finally acknowledged that the astronomer was right granted an audience to a group of visiting scientists who were running NASA’s eponymous Jupiter mission. Galileo Project Director Bill O’Neil and Project Scientist Torrence Johnson presented John Paul II with an album containing the spacecraft’s Europa photographs and explained their implications.[viii] Studying the moon’s tilted, displaced, refrozen icebergs for a long minute, the pontiff finally looked up at his visitors. “Wow,” he said.
3.
Wow, indeed. So where do we stand now, one year shy of four centuries since moons were first spotted in orbit of wrathful Jupiter? The prior role of the Galilean satellites in modifying our understanding of the universe might seem an extraordinarily hard act to follow. One of the few conceivable ways they could do so might be if the discovery of life among them provided a fittingly grand finale to the story of humanity’s investigations of them. Provocatively enough, fascinatingly enough, such a discovery isn’t just not impossible: it’s possible – even probable. Or such is the careful impression left by Europa: The Ocean Moon. And Richard Greenberg’s thesis certainly isn’t unique to him; it has gained wide credence in the planetary sciences community since Galileo’s first pictures of Europa created a sensation.
Greenberg’s book is something that has only been a workable proposition during the last decade or so: a sizable tome, packed with text and many images, entirely devoted to a single satellite of a distant planet. It opens with a vivid evocation of hypothesized jellyfish and plant life floating within Europan tidal ecosystems, and proceeds to build a compelling case that all the ingredients and conditions exist to sustain “a long-lived global biosphere on Europa,” as Greenberg writes. If there’s a single book that should be required reading among those planning NASA’s future robotic deep space missions, it’s this one.
In 1976, a young scientist with a calling card bearing the rarified job description “celestial mechanician” was chosen to be a member of the Galileo imaging team, the group in charge of pointing a spacecraft’s camera and interpreting its results. Greenberg was selected on the strength of an application that argued that what would be seen among the planet’s moons, when they were finally observed up close, could profitably be studied in light of the gravitational, or “tidal,” dynamics there.[ix] Jupiter, by far the largest planet, is massive enough to cause even the sun to wobble slightly from its gravitational pull. The forces affecting its moons are therefore considerable.
As it turned out, three of the four large moons that help define the Jovian system were so decisively shaped by gravitational energies that they couldn’t have been better suited for study by Greenberg’s vocation. Celestial mechanics, which is the application of physics to the study of the motions and properties of astronomical objects, gave him a distinct advantage over the geologists that dominated the Galileo imaging team. As a truly alien world Europa, as Greenberg makes clear in Ocean Moon, possesses a surface that can’t readily be explained by recourse to terrestrial analogies, which geologists tend to rely on. In a process almost entirely unlike the Earth’s largely internally generated tectonic and thermal processes, the forces driving Europa seem to come from outside.[x]
While it had been known for centuries that the inner three Galilean satellites orbit in a mathematically perfect resonance – for every rotation around Jupiter of the outermost moon, Ganymede, Europa goes around twice and Io does so four times – what hadn’t been sufficiently appreciated was that the resulting regular repetition in their alignments enforces irregular, elliptical orbits for all three. Well before his active involvement the Galileo program Greenberg had worked out the true deviations in their orbits due to this “resonance.” But he hadn’t followed the process through to its logical conclusion. In Ocean Moon he reports receiving a call from Stanton Peale, the man who did. While still researching his exquisitely timed paper predicting volcanism on Io, Peale called Greenberg seeking confirmation of the exact orbital eccentricity, or deviation from a true circle, of the Galilean satellites. Greenberg had the goods on that, and readily shared them with his colleague:
“Do you know what this means?” [Peale] asked. “No, what?” I cluelessly responded. “It means that there must be an incredibly high rate of tidal heating in Io and probably in Europa as well.” I became the first of many celestial mechanicians to slap their foreheads: Why didn’t I think of that!
As Greenberg puts it, everything interesting about Europa follows from the fact that its orbit isn’t perfectly circular. If there had been only one large moon orbiting Jupiter, it would travel in a nearly perfect circle and its surface would have been tugged into a slightly oblong shape millions of years ago due to the effects of the planet’s gravity. The tidal stresses that had distorted it would then have effectively relaxed as it froze solidly into that shape. But as Galileo was the first to realize, there are four substantial moons, ranging in size from about the same as the Earth’s moon (Io and Europa) to just over and just under that of the planet Mercury (Ganymede and Callisto). Their gravity, and their ever-shifting yet repetitive alignments as they orbit, continuously stir things up within the Jovian system.
In effect, their ceaseless gravitational interplay keeps the inner three stressed. As tidal forces ricochet back and forth, the inner three moons rock from side to side as they orbit, ensuring that neither their crusts nor their interiors ever freeze into a fixed shape. The result, on Europa, is the continuous flexing thought to creak through its global shell, cracking and displacing its surface and creating a friction-generated heat allowing for liquid water underneath. (The result on neighboring Io, the nearest to Jupiter, is clearly a massive global sub-surface reservoir of red-hot magma, capped by a lurid sulfur surface: the most volcanic object in known space.)
Much of this of course took quite some time to work out, and Europa: The Ocean Moonchronicles a remarkable set of inter-linked, collaborative feats of deduction regarding elements of the above picture by Greenberg’s small interdisciplinary group of graduate students in Tucson. At its peak the team included accomplished geologist and remote-imaging specialist Paul Geissler,[xi] physicist and astronomer Gregg Hoppa, and structural geologist Randy Tufts. (Tufts died in 2002, only a few years after achieving a remarkable insight into the nature of Jupiter’s second moon.)
As Galileo’s images came in, the first order of business of Greenberg and his group was to try to establish, with as little wiggle-room as possible, that Europa in fact possesses a liquid ocean. Apart from the icebergs, could its surface contain what were in effect coded messages confirming the presence of sub-surface water? Their second, related task was to determine how thick its ice might be – an issue crucial to the likelihood of life there. Ironically, they found the relatively small number of pictures from the semi-crippled Galileo Orbiter to be a blessing: the low rate of data flowing from the spacecraft meant that even their small group could scrutinize each image at great length. Some of their insights ended up possessing a revelatory quality that will certainly be savored by planetary scientists for a long while.
One such finding, Randy Tufts and Gregg Hoppa’s decryption of the moon’s mysteriously arcuate fault lines, was the first substantial empirical confirmation of a sub-surface ocean. These curving “cycloidal” fissures had long counted among the moon’s most puzzling features. Even the more distant Voyager images of Europa in 1979 had revealed long, linked chains of curvilinear cracks, each joined to the next by a kind of cusp. And Galileo’s higher-resolution images contained many more examples, revealing that many of Europa’s faults that aren’t linked into chains also curve. But why?
The answer was the product of research that could only have been fruitful if conducted under the light of celestial mechanics. One way to start unraveling Europa’s mysteries, Greenberg had reasoned, was to plot the evolution in both direction and power of Jupiter’s gravity as it plays across the moon’s surface during each of its 85-hour orbits of the giant planet. Accordingly he assigned Gregg Hoppa to calculate the strength, duration and direction of the stresses effecting Europa during each of its rotations around its parent world. By the spring of 1998, Hoppa had produced a series of tidal stress charts, which he posted on the walls of the room he shared with geologist Tufts. Their well spaced, gradually shifting lines looked a lot like iron filings that have been aligned due to the passage of an invisible magnet.
A balding, soft-spoken man then in his early 50’s, Tufts told me that he’d been taking a break one night from laboring over his doctoral dissertation during the summer of 1998 when it occurred to him that the curvature of Europa’s faults might be the result of the shift, in both direction and power, of Jupiter’s gravity during each of the moon’s revolutions around the planet.[xii] It followed that this directional shift would recur with each orbit. With growing excitement he considered the possibility that Europa’s cycloidal chains, so repetitive in space, might have resulted from repetitions in time – from the metronomically repetitive gravitational forces that unfold during each orbit. Studying Hoppa’s print-outs and sketching curvilinear lines in his notebook, Tufts saw that whenever he followed Jupiter’s ever-shifting gravitational influence with his pencil, he I fact ended up with looping, linked cracks – fissures in the ice that appeared to propagate in curving, stop-and-go chains, exactly as they do in Galileo photographs. It was a classic “Eureka” moment. Later, Hoppa punched the varying amplitudes and timings of his stress calculations into his computer and successfully got it to generate the same curving lines.[xiii] Europa’s arcuates mystery had been solved.
In fact it was only later, almost as a kind of after-thought, that the team realized that the process they’d discovered required the presence of a global sub-surface ocean many tens of kilometers deep. Without that little detail, the liquid water presumed to be exerting pressure from below couldn’t have had the heft to produce the cracks. Tufts and Hoppa had divined the first truly substantial empirical proof of Europa’s ocean.[xiv] It was front page news across the United States: Jupiter’s second moon had vaulted to the head of the short list of extraterrestrial objects thought to possess the potential of hosting indigenous life. (The other leading contender is Mars, though lately Saturn’s icy moon Enceladus, which bears a distinct resemblance to Europa and also possesses sub-surface liquid water, has also entered the running.)
Having come about as close to proving a Europan ocean as possible without actually drilling through the ice, Greenberg and his group proceeded to pursue multiple threads of inquiry, almost all of which pointed to a crust only a few kilometers thick – thin enough to allow for various forms of contact between the ocean and surface. Much of Europa: The Ocean Moon is devoted to documenting this highly elaborated effort, which encompassed Europa’s faulting, its iceberg-spackled melt-through regions, and the moon’s relatively few impact craters, all of which tend towards a flattened appearance when above a certain size. That flattening provides still more evidence of a relatively thin crust, as the asteroids that made these craters are presumed to have punched straight through to liquid water, which then filled the hole and froze. To judge from Galileo’s photographs, the results look more like what happens when a bullet bounces off bulletproof glass, producing a network of cracks, than a dish-shaped crater of the lunar variety.
The book’s many photographs include a number of fascinating, colorful “puzzle-piece” forensic reconstructions of Europan crustal features that have moved out of alignment due to the same gravitational forces that created the cycloids.[xv] Some of them bear an uncanny resemblance to the Suprematist canvases of the Soviet avant-garde of the 1930’s.
4.
It was in their finding that Europa must possess a relatively thin (and thus permeable) crust that Greenberg’s group presented their most direct challenge to what was by then an already well-entrenched orthodoxy in Europa studies. Established by the geologist that dominated Galileo’s imaging team, this understanding of Europa held that the moon’s ice shell is many tens of kilometers thick. If true, that would mean that the moon’s sub-surface ocean was effectively isolated from the organic chemicals on its surface, making it less likely to contain life. The dispute between the thin-ice findings of Greenberg and his group and the largely geologist-driven thick ice understanding of Europa is where politics enters the picture.
One would think that the planetary sciences community would eagerly embrace any evidence supporting the thesis that Europa might be thin-skinned enough to possess conditions potentially suitable for life. But as Greenberg makes clear, this isn’t necessarily so. Europa: The Ocean Moon is interesting for a number of reasons; not least of them its withering critique of the ways in which academic politics undermined objective scientific research within the Galileo program (allegedly, of course, but much evidence if provided). Greenberg is very blunt. The imaging team that he belonged to for 26 years “included some of the more politically skilful, aggressive, and powerful members of the scientific community.” “Heavy-hitting geologists” who’d gained exclusive rights to conduct initial interpretations of the incoming data and who relied heavily on “inexperienced students” for this all-important task dominated the planning of the spacecraft’s observations. Snap judgments about the nature of Europa were fuelled by the need to provide the media with an instant analysis of early photographs. These necessarily provisional findings ended up codified into positions that were than defended at all costs, because scientific and institutional reputations had already been staked. The result was that questionable conclusions became canonized, leading to the acceptance in most scientific papers (sometimes even a coerced acceptance, or so Greenberg implies) that Europa’s ice must be 20 kilometers thick or more.
If Greenberg appears willing to abide errors in interpretation, and even admits to making a few himself, he clearly can’t stomach what he regards as a willful insistence on sticking to increasingly untenable positions for reasons of individual and institutional pride. He sketches a disturbing picture in which much pressure was put on researchers to produce findings in conformity with the prevailing (i.e., thick-ice) thesis. Younger, untenured researchers, Greenberg charges with palpable anger, actually risked their careers if they didn’t do so. This was no honest disagreement between scientists, he indicates, but rather a kind of conspiracy led by “apparatchiks” within a “nomenklatura” that includes a sizable slice of the US planetary science elite. In places Greenberg fairly seethes over the “political hustlers and enforcers” who have committed “inexcusable errors in research methods and results.” He’s not shy about naming names, either.
Clearly no non-scientist can adjudicate this apparently quite poisonous dispute. I will say that Greenberg’s quoting of the original Galileo in condemnation of the “malignity, envy and ignorance” of those who would “force the course of nature to conform to their dreams” strikes me as a shade ill advised. The clear implication that he and his team stand in Galileo’s shoes is unworthy – not because it’s untrue (it certainly isn’t) but because it’s unnecessary. Europa: The Ocean Moon makes a more than sufficient argument in support of its case that Jupiter’s second satellite possesses conditions potentially suitable for life without needing to equate its author’s thick-ice, isolated-ocean opponents with the leaders of the Inquisition.
Because finally Europa: The Ocean Moon, like the spacecraft providing most of its images, is evidence that a flawed system worked more or less correctly – at least in the end. Greenberg’s early work led to his inclusion on the Galileo imaging team. He was able to bring together an evolving brain trust of brilliant grad students at one of the country’s leading planetary sciences facilities, where his tenure shielded him, allowing him to publish findings in contradiction of more orthodox views. The density and complexity of the book’s argumentation, the sheer quality of its evidently well-funded research, the originality and even conceptual beauty of its findings, all are evidence of an organizational structure for deep-space research which may be inefficient, and riven in places by factionalism and careerism, but which was ultimately effective.
And it has to be asked; didn’t all the institutional weight behind the thick-ice view of Europa in the end force Greenberg to hone his argument? Would his book be this good without it? After all, only a few years have passed since robot Galileo’s last encounter with Jupiter’s orbiting oceanic satellite, and yet on the evidence of Europa: The Ocean Moon, the work of Greenberg’s small squad of interplanetary code-crackers won’t merely endure – it will prevail. Citing budget constraints, NASA has cancelled two dedicated missions to Europa just in the last six years. It should make actually launching one an overriding priority: there can be no more important destination in all of planetary science.
[i] Historian William Burrows points out that the more common translation of Siderreus nuncius, “Starry Messengers,” is less reflective of Galileo’s meaning. This New Ocean (Random House, 1998) footnote, pg. 16
[ii] Dava Sobel, Longitude (Penguin Books, 1995) pg. 27
[iii] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ole_Romer
[iv] Two prior fly-by missions did not carry sufficiently advanced cameras for much knowledge of the moons to be obtained.
[v] In fact it has since been established that they make limited use of nutrients that filter down from the surface.
[vi] For a detailed look at the Galileo mission, which ended in 2003, see my article “What Galileo Saw,” The New Yorker, 9/1/2003; it’s also in Best American Science Writing 2005 (HarperCollins).
[vii] Sex appeal aside, many planetary scientists end up referring to their object of fascination as a planet, even if it’s actually orbiting one.
[viii] O’Neil interview with the author, Paris, March 2000.
[ix] In celestial mechanics the word “tide” is used to denote the effects of gravity on anything, not necessarily a liquid.
[x] Clearly the tides raise in both the Earth’s oceans and to a lesser but measurable extent on its crust are an exception to this statement.
[xi] Full disclosure: I worked extensively with Paul Geissler to produce many of the color images in my book “Beyond: Visions of the Interplanetary Probes” (Harry N. Abrams, 2003)
[xii] Interview with the author, Padua, October 1999
[xiii] For compelling images and animations of this, see http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~hoppa/science.html
[xiv] Their findings were later corroborated by Galileo’s magnetometer, which discerned a flux in Europa’s magnetic field consistent with a global layer of conductive sub-surface salty water.
[xv] As Greenberg puts it, Hoppa’s gravitational stress charts “eventually became the basis for explaining most of the major tectonic patterns on Europa.”
____
THE INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE (OP-ED PAGE), July 19. 2004
EXPLORING OUTER SPACE : SAVE THE HUBBLE TELESCOPE
Op-Ed Contributor
By MICHAEL BENSON
-
LJUBLJANA, Slovenia— We are living in the greatest age that astronomy has ever seen. New technologies both on the ground and in space have revolutionized our ability to peer into the heavens. Over the last decade, more than a hundred planets orbiting other stars have been discovered; innumerable galaxies, many of them rife with the glittering hatcheries of star formation, have been catalogued; and the Hubble Space Telescope has peered back to within only 400 million years of the Big Bang, producing the deepest look into space and time ever conducted.
As a result, our placement within a stunningly vast universe has become much more clear. Our tiny planet’s fragile surface layer of life is suspended within an exceedingly grand evolutionary process.
Although ground-based instruments are getting much better, with adaptive optics compensating for the atmosphere’s shimmer, the Hubble Space Telescope’s unparalleled ability to peer into deepest space from well above our planet’s thin oxygen envelope makes it by wide consensus the most important instrument in the history of modern astronomy. Among many other wonders, Hubble has shown us dusty proto-planetary discs around emerging stars in the Orion Nebula: solar systems in the process of formation. It’s as though our miraculous national spyglass can peer at the exact epoch depicted in the first sentence of Genesis. Using Hubble, we may in fact have already looked at the earliest prehistory of planetary systems that will one day be capable of supporting intelligent life.
Hubble has also succeeded in doing something astronomers once thought nearly impossible: hooking millions of nonspecialists on their profession. As one film producer told me, “I don’t need organized religion as long as I can look at those Hubble images.” The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has only benefited. According to a recent Science News survey of all science and technology stories published worldwide, Hubble coverage in 2002 comprised a whopping 33 percent of all NASA-related articles.
Despite all this, and despite the fact that with servicing the Hubble could have many more years of productive life left, in January the NASA administrator, Sean O’Keefe, decided to cancel a scheduled shuttle mission to the telescope. The mission would have replaced aging batteries and gyroscopic stabilizers, and installed cutting-edge observational instruments. These expensive devices, which have already been built, would insure that the Hubble would remain astronomy’s leading observatory for the rest of the decade or more; without them the telescope will most likely cease operations by 2007. O’Keefe’s decision was presented as grounded in safety concerns, not budgetary ones.
The resulting outcry in defense of the telescope by astronomers, politicians and the public forced O’Keefe into concessions. Dissident NASA engineers pointed out that a mission to the International Space Station is in many ways more hazardous, not less, than a Hubble trip – essentially demolishing the NASA administrator’s core argument.
One of O’Keefe’s commendable moves was to request that a board of experts at the National Academy of Sciences study the Hubble servicing situation and issue a recommendation. The administrator has also said that NASA may seek a robotic mission to the telescope, a face-saving compromise that would be expensive and most likely incapable of installing Hubble’s new instruments. By contrast, space-walking astronauts could achieve that with relative ease; they’ve already serviced Hubble safely three times.
In a letter to O’Keefe on July 13, the academy board strongly advised NASA not to let the telescope die, and although it didn’t rule a robotic mission out, it stated categorically that “NASA should take no actions that would preclude a space shuttle servicing mission.”
It goes without saying that the space shuttle shouldn’t fly again until NASA has succeeded in making it as safe as possible. At the very least, a second shuttle should always be readied for possible use as a rescue vehicle. But given NASA’s intention to revive the shuttle program in the first place, it’s clearly time to restore planning for a crewed mission to service astronomy’s leading observatory.
***
Michael Benson is the author of “Beyond: Visions of the Interplanetary Probes.”
THE INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE (OP-ED PAGE) June 8. 2004
TO THE MOON AND BEYOND: WHY NOT BRING CHINA INTO THE COSMIC CLUB?
Op-Ed Contributor
By MICHAEL BENSON
-
LJUBLJANA, Slovenia— A panel that has been given the responsibility of providing substance to President George W. Bush’s putative new space vision will deliver its report to the White House today after more than four months of hearings. One of the panel’s main tasks has been to try to discern how to return people to the moon, and then eventually forge onward with a manned mission to Mars, without a substantial NASA budget increase.
Panel members have let it be known that they are concerned about how to sustain such an ambitious initiative across several presidential administrations. It will require the design and construction of a new, highly versatile piloted space vehicle capable of travel well beyond low Earth orbit. Because this scenario also mandates that the space shuttle be retired upon the completion of the International Space Station at the end of the decade, the future of U.S. crewed space flight will certainly depend on sustained bipartisan support.
Let’s therefore hope that the panel’s recommendations include a substantial role not only for the Russians, the Europeans and the Japanese — all partners in the International Space Station project — but also the Chinese.
Last October, after more than a decade of development, China successfully launched an astronaut (or “taikonaut”) into Earth orbit in the Shenzhou V spacecraft — essentially a substantially reengineered version of the venerable Russian Soyuz. China is only the third country, after the United States and the Soviet Union, to have sent a human into space.
By all accounts, China’s space officials expected that they would next be invited to participate in the space station project. They therefore designed Shenzhou with a docking ring capable of connecting to the station, and made sure that one of the country’s launch sites is at a latitude suitable for lobbing spacecraft toward it. Despite this, China received a frosty reception from Bush administration officials.
According to an American expert on the Chinese space program, Joan Johnson-Freese, they were told their technology was “not mature.” And when China’s first taikonaut, Yang Liwei — a hero to billions — toured Cape Canaveral two weeks ago, he was hosted not by NASA but by an obscure state organization, the Florida Space Authority.
A multilateral effort to open the solar system could be a perfect antidote to our Earthly fractiousness.
It’s high time we took some more giant leaps — together.
***
Michael Benson is author of “Beyond: Visions of the Interplanetary Probes.”
THE INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE (OP-ED PAGE), April 30. 2004
EUROPE REUNITED : HISTORY'S RIVER FLOWS THROUGH A SLOVENIAN VALLEY
Op-Ed Contributor
By MICHAEL BENSON
-
LJUBLJANA, Slovenia— In the summer of 1991, I went with a Slovenian friend to visit her grandmother in an Alpine valley not far from the Italian border. Our underpowered Yugo strained to climb a road whose slope at times must have approached 18 degrees. Slovenia was then still within a legal limbo, officially seceded from Yugoslavia but not yet recognized by most of the world as an independent state. No air travel in or out of the new country was yet permitted because of this legal ambiguity — which didn’t keep the Yugoslav Air Force from periodically sending jets screaming across the tiny nation. The attempted intimidation didn’t work, however, and soon the Serbian-controlled Yugoslav Army shifted its attention and set to bloody work in Croatia and Bosnia. Slovenia was free.
Because of the relative tranquillity with which it gained its independence, it is possible to forget that Slovenia, set to become one of the newest members of the European Union on Saturday, used to be the westernmost republic of the former Yugoslavia. Tiny, low-profile Slovenia, population just under two million, enters the EU with the highest standard of living and most vibrant economy of any of the formerly socialist countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Joining the rest of Western Europe in the EU is a big step, but what I discovered in the high Alps that day was that the invisible border between East and West has passed across tiny Slovenia four times in a single lifetime.
We found my friend’s grandmother, Marija Flajs, working on her small farm surrounded by serrated snow-capped mountains and perfectly situated in flower-speckled meadows populated by some of the most contented-looking cows this side of Switzerland. Marija, who was then 81, still had clear memories of the fighting that had raged in these mountains from 1915 to 1917, during World War I, when the Soca Front (along what the Italians call the Isonzo River) was the largest single killing zone outside of the trench warfare in Belgium. In a situation familiar to most of the small nations of Central Europe, local boys were drafted into the uniforms of both sides to the conflict. Most fought for the Hapsburgs; many also wound up with the Italian forces.
Marija recalled the echo of artillery fire among the peaks that surrounded the Bovec Valley as vast numbers of uniformed men slaughtered each other in appalling conditions. As the award-winning museum devoted to the conflict in the nearby town of Kobarid makes clear, the high-altitude Soca Front was brutal even in a summer without artillery fire, and in the winter many thousands died.
The crash of the Hapsburg Empire (capital: Vienna) soon after the war meant that in late 1918 Marija Flajs exchanged her Hapsburg passport for one issued by an experimental pan-Slavic nation that at first was called the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (capital: Belgrade). But by 1929 King Alexander I had renamed the country the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and outlawed all political parties. Slovenia had been shuffled from one vast multinational empire into a smaller aggregate of nations, this one increasingly dominated by a Serbian royal family not known for its sensitivity toward other ethnic groups.
This state of affairs lasted until April 1941, when a simultaneous attack by Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and Hungary dismembered the first Yugoslavia. A substantial part of Slovenia was incorporated directly into the Third Reich, with the rest divided between Italy and Hungary. Once again, Slovenes wound up in various uniforms, from those of the Axis powers to the homespun green of the wily Partisan resistance. The Bovec Valley was in the Italian sphere, and Marija exchanged her Yugoslav passport for an Italian one.
In 1945, Tito declared the foundation of a new Socialist Yugoslavia, an entity that like its predecessor included Slovenia as its westernmost republic. Marija Flajs exchanged her passport for one bearing a red star and the name of the new socialist state (capital: Belgrade), which by 1948 had broken with Stalin’s emerging Warsaw Pact, becoming the first nonaligned Communist state and therefore the focus of much good will — and financial support — from the West.
An increasingly prosperous Slovenia remained firmly in Yugoslavia from 1945 to 1991, when it declared independence. Unlike Croatia and Bosnia, Slovenia gained independence with a minimum of bloodshed, largely because the absence of a large Serbian minority meant that the republic was uninteresting to Belgrade’s ruthless advocates of the Greater Serbia project.
When we visited her, Marija Flajs had just exchanged her passport yet again, to become a citizen of the Republic of Slovenia — the first time she had belonged to a country that featured her native tongue, Slovenian, as its official state language, and that had the Slovene capital, Ljubljana, as its center of power. Although she had never budged from her picturesque Alpine valley, Marija had changed her citizenship four times. She didn’t find this particularly noteworthy, however — after so many upheavals, why should she have?
Marija Flajs died in 1996 at the age of 86. I imagine she wouldn’t have been in the least surprised by the latest shift of that invisible East-West border across her high valley. On Saturday, after only 13 years of answering to nobody but itself, Slovenia will become a part of the European Union (capital: Brussels). Although the reissued Slovenian passport will remain just that — the travel document of a sovereign state — it will bring with it most of the rights and all the obligations of the European Union, and Brussels will become the center of authority for a wide spectrum of laws and regulations.
Like the other small nations of Central Europe, Slovenia has some good historical reasons for skepticism about the large multinational structure that it is joining. Will the tiny nation finally become an insider, a country on the right side of history? And even if it does, how long can that possibly last? Will the handful of permanent residents of the Bovec Valley, Marija’s neighbors and friends, have to replace their passports yet again as onrushing history establishes the 21st century’s identity? The record gives ample reasons to believe that here, as in the rest of the universe, change is the only constant.
***
Michael Benson, a writer and filmmaker, directed “Predictions of Fire,” a documentary about the 20th-century history of Slovenia.
THE INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE (OP-ED PAGE), February 24. 2004
SCIENTISTS AND BUSH : WHEN SCIENCE WAS THWARTED BEFORE
Op-Ed Contributor
By MICHAEL BENSON
-
LJUBLJANA, Slovenia— For anyone who ever spent time in the old Soviet Union, the recent statement by 60 of the top scientists in the United States had an eerie ring of déjà vu. The accusatory statement, which included 20 Nobel laureates among its issuers, charges that the Bush administration has systematically distorted scientific facts in pursuit of its policy goals. The name of Lysenko, the quack mid-century Soviet botanist, comes to mind.
In the 1930s, Trofim Lysenko postulated that hereditary changes to plants could be triggered by environmental changes — for example, by exposing seed grain to extreme temperatures. He insisted that this theory, which rejected widely accepted chromosome theories of heredity, directly corresponded to Marxism. He was rapidly promoted within the Stalinist hierarchy and in short order effectively became the science czar of the Soviet Union. Under him, bona fide geneticists were denounced as advocates of a doctrine synonymous with fascism. Lysenko was personally responsible for the deportation to the gulag of many talented scientists who didn’t agree with his theories.
Lysenko was, of course, just a symptom of a far larger disease, in which the reigning Soviet ideology, which insisted that its doctrines were firmly grounded in objectively verifiable scientific fact, warped the realities surrounding it to justify its own totalitarian rule and agenda.
Two decades after Lysenko was finally denounced by Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet media still featured a steady diet of contented workers and gleaming combines. The reality, as everyone knew, was different; decrepit, sluggish industries, an agricultural sector that had to import increasing amounts of wheat from the United States, widespread alcoholism and despair, a dead-end command economy.
The Bush administration, needless to say, is not the old Soviet regime, and a Lysenko could never gain such power in the United States. Still, the statement last week by America’s scientific elite has troubling echoes and should serve as a clear warning of the dangers of wearing ideological blinkers. Like the old Soviet Union, which invaded Afghanistan on the basis of a sort of inverted version of the Western domino theory, the Bush regime attacked Iraq with the shakiest of justifications, and like the Soviet Union of the 1980s, the United States is now bogged down in a bloody and expensive war that is drawing infuriated mujahadeen from across the Muslim world.
The Soviet system essentially ignored fundamental economic realities, bankrupting itself in a fruitless attempt to keep up with the United States militarily; the Bush administration likewise seems to believe that it can spend as much as it wants on flawed missile defense schemes and an open-ended global war on terror while legislating massive tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest part of the population.
The Soviet Union cranked out reams of strident propaganda in which non-Socialist states were depicted as despotic outposts of capitalist exploitation, with Moscow and its allies the gleaming hope for mankind; the Bush administration’s black-and-white division of the planet into those for and against us provides a chilling reprise.
The KGB conducted surveillance on its population without even a pretense of judicial oversight; although obviously not comparable with Stalinist methods, the Bush administration’s Patriot Act (an Orwellian name if ever there was one) similarly gives a wide latitude to the FBI to conduct domestic surveillance at will and without much legal recourse.
To circle back to science, last week’s “J’accuse” by America’s leading scientific minds underlines, among other things, a perilous danger. Although there is now a scientific consensus that industrial effluents are the leading cause of a (similarly unquestionable) global warming trend, the White House simply dismisses the evidence. And here again we have to keep the Lysenko example in mind.
In the same way that the Bush administration exaggerated intelligence on Iraq, emphasizing extreme worst-case scenarios to make its case for war, it ignores overwhelming evidence that global warming is gathering force, stressing those few studies which call it into question.
In the end, as the filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard said, reality has a way of taking its revenge. The Soviet Union finally disintegrated under the weight of its internal contradictions, a victim of the discrepancy between its ideologically distorted views and reigning reality.
Kurt Gottfried, chairman of the board of directors at the Union of Concerned Scientists and a signer of the accusatory study, was quoted in The New York Times as saying that the administration’s attitude toward science could place the long-term prosperity of the United States at risk. Despite the spooky Soviet overtones the Bush administration has brought to Washington, the United States remains a well-grounded democracy. We need to lose this creeping latter-day variant of Lysenkoism that has moved well beyond the current administration’s dealing with scientific and ecological issues to taint American politics and diplomacy across the board.
***
Michael Benson, author of “Beyond: Visions of the Interplanetary Probes,” has written for The New Yorker and The Atlantic Monthly.
-
About two-and-a-half miles above the Pacific, the world’s biggest observatory complex dominates the summit of Mauna Kea in Hawaii. Among other instruments at this site are the Kecks, the largest optical telescopes in the world; each possesses a mirror that is more than 30 feet wide. Mauna Kea is without question one of the nation’s leading scientific research facilities.
One can therefore imagine the outcry that would follow if the University of Hawaii, which manages Mauna Kea, announced one day that the telescopes would be demolished because of budgetary constraints. It’s expensive to maintain all that fancy equipment under the stars, the university might say; what’s more, other programs require increased financing.
Ridiculous? In the case of Mauna Kea, the answer is, thankfully, yes. But virtually the same thing is happening to another, even more valuable observatory: the Hubble Space Telescope, which the National Aeronautics and Space Administration recently sentenced to a slow death.
Launched in 1990, the Hubble is surely the most important instrument in modern astronomy. Because it orbits outside the Earth’s atmosphere, it sees things ground-based observatories can’t. In the telescope’s photographs, for example, the earliest galaxies can be seen careering at the edge of space-time like candy-colored pinwheels. These and other pictures have turned the Hubble into our national time machine — a device capable of peering back to epochs that far predate the formation of the Earth.
In fact, the pictures the Hubble has given us rank in importance with Apollo’s canonical Earthrise over the Moon. And the telescope has done all this for a reasonable price: it consumes only 2 percent of NASA’s annual operating budget.
Nevertheless, just days after President George W. Bush directed NASA to focus on missions to the Moon and Mars, the agency said it would drop plans to send the space shuttle on one of its periodic Hubble servicing missions — even though more than $200 million worth of new instruments for the telescope had already been built. The decision spells an early demise for the observatory, which will now most likely stop functioning by about 2007. In the past, shuttle missions have rejuvenated the Hubble — creating, in effect, a new telescope every time. With consistent servicing, it could operate for decades more.
NASA said that its Hubble decision was based on safety, not budgetary concerns. The agency was following the recommendations of the Columbia accident investigation commission, which suggested that future shuttle missions go to the International Space Station. That way, if the shuttle sustains damage — broken tiles, for instance — its crew can take refuge in the station. Because the Hubble is on a different orbit from the space station, a crew aboard a wounded shuttle would have nowhere to go.
This week, however, under pressure from Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland, NASA said it would ask Adm. Harold W. Gehman Jr., head of the Columbia commission, to examine whether it is safe for astronauts to visit the Hubble. Let’s hope Admiral Gehman recommends to NASA that it reverse its decision. After all, there is good reason to do so. NASA has three remaining shuttles. Two could be prepared simultaneously — one to visit the Hubble and the other to be ready to go in the event that spare parts or a rescue is needed in space. If the second shuttle isn’t used, it will be all set for its next flight.
NASA’s deeper, less advertised worry is probably its budget. With many new objectives, the agency needs to trim as much fat as possible, and a Hubble repair mission costs about $500 million. But the Hubble long ago proved it was worth every cent. In recent years, it has generated more positive press for NASA than the astronaut program. It’s also the source of important science. In 2002, more than 3,500 published scientific papers grew out of Hubble observations.
More to the point, scrapping the Hubble could be as expensive as saving it. Without servicing by the shuttle, it will inevitably fall to Earth, and NASA can’t allow a 24,000-pound telescope to land just anywhere. So the agency will have to design and build a robotic rocket that would attach itself to the Hubble and bring it safely down in the ocean.
And here lies the fiscal absurdity: the price of that rocket is estimated by NASA at $300 million — and given that the Hubble wasn’t designed for automated docking, new technology would have to be developed, perhaps pushing the cost even higher. Add to this the $200 million in new gizmos already built for the Hubble and you get a woeful picture. By not spending $500 million to service the telescope (and add many more years to its life), we will probably have to spend the same amount to bring the telescope crashing down. (A servicing mission could attach rockets for eventual controlled re-entry far more easily and cheaply than a robotic mission.)
In fairness to NASA, the agency is in a bind. It has been directed to write a new chapter in human space exploration. But it has also been asked to undertake this mission on the cheap. Although it might sound reasonable to prod the agency to find a less valuable program to cut, under these circumstances that won’t be so easy.
Thankfully, there’s a way to save the Hubble. The solution is similar to one that might have been devised had the University of Hawaii gone off its rocker and decided to dynamite Mauna Kea. The answer is a Congressional grant. In this case, Congress should give the Hubble two more shuttle missions and another decade or more of discoveries. A billion dollars isn’t peanuts, but it would be of incalculable value in our quest to understand the universe and our place within it.
THE INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE (OP-ED PAGE), January 16. 2004
FORGET THE MOON - GO DIRECTLY TO MARS
Op-Ed Contributor
By MICHAEL BENSON
-
Ljubljana — Earth, as we have known for only a small part of the trajectory of the human species, hangs in an inconceivably vast space. That void isn’t empty, however; it’s spangled with other planets, moons and stars. The planets of our solar system have all been visited by robot probes now – with the sole exception of tiny, distant Pluto. These preliminary explorations have revealed a diversity of spheres so dazzling that many can hold their own with the wildest science fictional imaginings. More than enough reason, one would think, for human beings to go.
In the mid-1990’s I asked the planetary scientist Gregg Hoppa, then involved in decrypting the mysteries of Jupiter’s bizarrely ice-enveloped moon Europa, what he thought about crewed space flight. Hoppa’s team at the University of Arizona had been beneficiaries of a torrent of information from NASA’s late, lamented Jupiter-orbiting Galileo spacecraft – data which, among other things, indicated that Europa most likely possesses a vast liquid-water ocean under its fissured ice shell – and I expected to hear that robots can do everything that astronauts can do, only better and more cheaply. Instead, Hoppa contemplated the question for a moment and finally said: “Well, I wish they’d go somewhere.”
This point of view would seem to be supported by both the new Bush space exploration proposal, unveiled Wednesday, and the recent wave of public interest in NASA’s successful placement of the first of two robot rovers on the Martian surface. Contrast that with the general public indifference to the presence of humans in low Earth orbit, be they on the space shuttle, when it’s up and running, or the International Space Station. The Spirit rover and its intriguingly crab-like, stereo-eyed twin are only the latest fruit of a determined effort over four decades, by a highly talented coterie of scientists and engineers, to make the best possible use of the small part of NASA’s budget allocated for true solar system exploration.
Unfortunately, Bush’s election-year vision of where to take America’s space program is muddled. It’s true that his plan proposes finally taking human beings out of low Earth orbit – as Hoppa and many others, including myself, would like. But when a single, decisive, dramatic goal would seem to be crucially necessary, Bush wants to have things various ways. Decades after the public’s declining interest in lunar exploration helped force NASA to cut the Apollo program short of its full complement of planned missions, Bush argues that we should return to the moon.
This time the purpose would be to establish a permanent base, intended to provide a kind of steppingstone to Mars – the same shaky argument used to justify the International Space Station. According to the plan, a trip by astronauts to Mars itself would be several decades away, and even the putative moon base would be 16 years in the future. The only truly sensible element of this vision is the replacement of the space shuttle by a vehicle capable of taking astronauts well beyond Earth orbit.
NASA has stood in dire need of political direction for decades. But if the human exploration of space is really the goal, as it should be, then the Bush proposal is not the right way to proceed. In fact it is virtually the same nonstarter scenario unveiled, with a similar fanfare but dearth of actual funding, by the first President Bush more than a decade ago. Much of the expense of space flight comes from the quantities of propellant required to get crews and payloads beyond the gravity of Earth or other planets. It therefore makes little sense to use the moon, which possesses its own considerable gravity field, as a way-station to Mars. Even purely on the level of public relations the bleak moon shouldn’t be our first destination this second time around. We’ve been there, done that.
Over the last decade an alternative, more focused and achievable vision of crewed deep space flight has been elaborated. Called Mars Direct, it wouldn’t even require much of an increase in NASA’s budget – if the shuttle program and the International Space Station were gradually cut back or eliminated, as the Bush plan envisages. The shuttle alone costs half a billion dollars per flight; Mars Direct is estimated to cost from $20 billion to $30 billion – about twice NASA’s annual budget, but for a program that would take a decade to complete.
Mars Direct envisions three launchings directly from the Earth to Mars, starting with two large auto-piloted Earth-return vehicles designed to precede human astronauts to the Martian surface and manufacture propellant for the return journey from that planet’s atmosphere. Thoroughly conceptualized and widely recognized as feasible, Mars Direct can be accomplished largely with proven, existing space shuttle engines and solid rocket boosters. And in contrast to the hit-and-run moon landings of three decades ago, Mars Direct is designed to place humans on Mars for a year – long enough to do some serious exploration.
It’s important, however, that neither of these visions of where to take crewed spaceflight drains more cash from NASA’s highly successful, but woefully under-funded, robotic program – the only part of NASA that has actually been exploring the solar system for the past three decades. But it’s hard to imagine the dogmatic Bush team re-examining the substance of its new initiative, particularly since, given its hazy timetable and lack of real funding, it runs the risk of appearing largely an election-year exercise. So it may take a change of administrations, and a more streamlined and realistic – and therefore truly ambitious – plan to respond to the siren song of deep space. On the face of it, that might sound like a challenge to the Democratic candidates to come up with a bit of the old “vision thing.”
SMITHSONIAN MAGAZINE, November 1. 2003
SEEING THE SOLAR SYSTEM AS NEVER BEFORE
By MICHAEL BENSON
-
In the end, after the observations of the ancients and the meticulous mathematics of Kepler, after the comet-frescos of Giotto and the telescopic discoveries of Galileo, after Sputnik, Ranger, and all the far-flung probes of four decades of space flight – we have the stark, spectacular beauty of the spheres themselves. They’re real, verifiable. They move kinetically, inexorably. Grouped in wheeling archipelagoes, or sometimes alone, but always part of a larger system ruled by the sun’s gravity and light, they’re suspended in space like weightless jewels. Of the planets, most have moons. Of the moons, some are bigger than planets. Both moons and planets can have tenuous atmospheres, or incredibly thick ones, or none at all. Immense and banded, Jupiter is the largest by far. Flickering polar auroras, high-speed scudding clouds, and massive, whirling-dervish storm systems define its gaseous face. Jupiter’s powerful gravity insures that its innermost large moon, Io, is unstoppably volcanic and eerily lurid in its surface coloration. By contrast a second Jovian moon, Europa, is cool and off-white, a frozen, cue-ball perfect world. A third satellite, Callisto, has been ravaged by eons of meteor impacts; battered and pitted, it doesn’t look at all like either of its sisters. The proximity of the Jovian moons to each other only accentuates their odd-ball disparity.
Inwards and closer to the Sun than Jupiter, past the familiar blue glow of our home world, the hidden topography of cloud-shrouded Venus ripples and heaves with strange, protuberant forms. First discerned by the unwavering radar eye of the early 90’s Magellan space probe, they were quickly dubbed “ticks” and “arachnids” by planetary scientists, and are almost certainly the result of sub-surface volcanic activity. Meanwhile our other “terrestrial” neighbor, Mars, sports seasonal spinning dust devils; they trace spidery calligraphic streaks in the vicinity of Vallis Marinaris, the grandest canyon in the Solar System. As wide as the entire continental United States, this complex of vast and serrated desert walls was named after its discoverer, the 1971 Mariner 9 probe. And as if all this weren’t already enough, outwards from Jupiter in the direction of interstellar space, Saturn hovers like a hallucination. The shimmering ring system of the second largest planet are sixty feet thick, 155 thousand miles wide and comprised of innumerable boulders held perpetually in the grip of the rapidly spinning planet’s gravity. Saturn looks somehow designed – an object as perfect as the mathematics within the forces that made it.
How do we know about all this awesome scenery and clockwork motion? Because it has been photographed, scanned, and parsed by over a hundred robotic explorers from various nations – though primarily the United States and the former USSR (see http://www.solarviews.com/eng/craft1.htm) – using a variety of scientific instruments. (Interestingly, the word “robot” comes from the Russian “rabotnik,” or worker.) The sum total of the information which we’ve acquired in the brief forty years of space exploration so far outstrips all previous human knowledge of the Solar System as to make the comparison almost ridiculous – a dime-thin pamphlet next to a library of encyclopedias. And in the last decade these discoveries have continued cascading in exponentially. Less than two years ago, for example, NASA’s recently deceased Galileo probe revealed that Jupiter has up to nine tiny asteroidal satellites orbiting it close in. (That venerable spacecraft finally ended its fourteen year mission by diving into Jupiter in late September.) Within the last five years, Galileo also helped planetary geologists to deduce that the spidery network of cracks splayed across Europa’s ice face gives clear evidence of a subsurface liquid water ocean. The moon may even contain several times as much water as Earth – a prospect which inevitably raises the question of whether life could have evolved in orbit around Jupiter.
Other recent space probe findings concern Mars, and were conducted by the camera system of the Mars Global Surveyor and the thermal imaging system of another orbiting probe, Mars Odyssey. These two craft revealed that both distinctive gulleys and the thermal retention properties of parts of the Martian surface give evidence that this planet, too, most likely has liquid sub-surface water. Along with Europa, Mars is thus considered a potential host of extra-terrestrial life.
And this flood of revelations isn’t likely to stop anytime soon, despite NASA budget cuts and a crises in the agency due to the recent loss of Space Shuttle Columbia. In January of 2003, four probes from various nations will arrive at Mars, where they will join the two US orbiters currently on-station. Two new NASA missions will deploy rovers; a European Space Agency mission will leave an orbiter to circle the planet and send down a small stationary lander; and a Japanese mission called Nozumi will also go into orbit, resulting in a record-breaking seven spacecraft active at the Red Planet simultaneously. And in two years, one of the largest and most complex interplanetary spacecraft ever conceived, NASA’s Cassini, will arrive at Saturn after an eight year flight. This schoolbus-sized robot will study the planet’s rings and deploy a European-built probe called Huygens, which will penetrate the clouds of Saturn’s mysterious moon Titan. This opaque brown sphere appears to be rich in the same organic chemicals that presaged life on Earth; it may contain lakes, or even oceans, of liquid methane.
For much of the last decade I’ve been monitoring this activity as best I can, both by using the Internet and also by interviewing planetary scientists and the mission directors, navigators and engineers of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab. As a non-scientist with an interest in the visual arts, much of my motivation lay in simply being drawn to the more aesthetically compelling deep-space photographs. I was interested in pictures capable of inspiring awe, or wonder, and I believe I found them; many of these shots outstrip the wildest imaginings of 20th century science fiction (and yet they’re real).
I was helped in this research by the existence of large quantities of photographs on-line – either at public outreach websites like NASA’s excellent Planetary Photojournal (http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/) or in more specialized scientific research sites. I started to log large quantities of time in the latter, and found myself going through many thousands of raw, unprocessed pictures, just for the sheer fascination of stumbling on previously unnoticed views of these alien topographies. Soon I embarked on a book project to document my findings – something which had the advantage of giving me both the funding and time to search for the most ravishing extraterrestrial landscapes I could find.
Almost all of the photographs in the resulting book, Beyond: Visions of the Interplanetary Probes, required substantial amounts of digital processing. Some had never been rendered into color before. Quite a few are multiple-frame mosaics, the result of finding remarkable contiguous single frames and collaging them together. Even the many shots which were picked up largely pre-processed frequently required hours of work to make them suitable for publication, either to modify their colors according to the best information currently available, or to remove seams between mosaic frames, or to clone over a speckle of uncorrected bad pixels or other transmission artifacts. (And some, of course, simply slid into place without needing additional work—a testament to their talented processors, who often remain anonymous, with their pictures simply credited to JPL or NASA.)
As this issue of Smithsonian goes to press, a small squadron of space probes are in development. These include Messenger, only the second mission to Mercury, which will fly past the planet twice before settling into orbit around it in late 2009 after a five-year flight, and the Pluto-Kuiper Express, which has fought its way back from cancellation and received funding for a 2006 launch to visit the Solar System’s farthest-flung and smallest planet. The Express will then proceed to a mysterious belt of cometary snowballs and—who knows?—abandoned alien spacecraft beyond Neptune, at the dim edge of interstellar space.
When they get where they’re going, these and other hardy robot explorers will continue doing what the other probes have: they’ll help place us in both space and time, changing our sense of our position and our possibilities, and revealing glinting and unexpected new vistas under the dazzling Sun.
–Michael Benson
Ljubljana, Slovenia
September 23, 2003
ARTFORUM, October 1. 2003
HOW SLOVENIAN IS IT?
By MICHAEL BENSON
-
LAIBACH USED TO BE A FORCE to reckon with. To begin with, the band–if you can call this ensemble of sophisticated politico-cultural provocateurs simply a “band”–were the only group from the socialist world ever to make it in the West, signing a long-term recording contract with London’s prestigious indie label Mute Records (home to Moby, Nick Cave, Depeche Mode), and they did it entirely on their own terms. “Art and ideology don’t exclude each other,” was one of their earliest slogans, but I prefer another: “All art is subject to political manipulation except that which speaks the language of the same manipulation.”
Laibach was revered by Russian rock musicians during the mid-’80s glasnost period; the Slovenian band’s culture-jamming strategies weren’t necessarily well understood, but they were proof that success in the capitalist world was possible. Like many of the Russian groups, Laibach performed an onstage theater, deploying (unlike the Russians) some of the most militantly provocative twentieth-century visual-ideological tropes; specifically, those of Nazism and Stalinism. They did this without any ideological agenda beyond the sheerest desire to take it to the hypocrisies of state power (essentially, by revealing the hidden mechanisms by which it works); despite the many dark allegations by uncomprehending critics whose hackles had successfully been raised, the band had no racist or nationalist designs. In a short time, Laibach became the cornerstone for a multimedia artistic movement soon named Neue Slowenische Kunst (New Slovenian art), or simply NSK.
A self-proclaimed “state without territory,” NSK initially borrowed many of its shock stratagems from Laibach, starting with its name: In the early ’80s, merely using German (which no NSK member actually speaks) was a provocation in a country founded on the mythology of Yugoslav resistance to the Nazi invasion. Laibach is the German name for Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia, which was one of the six Yugoslav republics but is now an independent state; the Germanized version of the name was imposed during the Nazi occupation and five hundred years of Hapsburg domination.
For a Communist country, Yugoslavia had relatively lenient cultural policies in the ’80s, and rock ‘n’ roll–that decadent manifestation of capitalist hedonism–wasn’t suppressed. But when Laibach first appeared onstage with a front man dressed in what seemed to be Nazi or italian Fascist regalia (it was, in fact, a Yugoslav army uniform but with the i insignia taken off and replaced by symbols derived from such twentieth-century avant-garde movements as Suprematism–an excellent illustration of Laibach’s working methods from the get-go), it was too much for the state’s ideological apparatus to handle, and they were soon banned from public performance. This didn’t happen, however, until after a remarkable staged appearance on TV Slovenia in 1983, during which the poker-faced, jackboot-wearing group responded to the sarcastic questions of an outraged journalist with a series of cryptic formulations delivered with robotic calm, one of which stated that the band was a kind of ideological early-warning system–essentially, a way to test if the state still had any spine. This was one of the most provocative uses of state television by any group of artists, not just in Eastern Europe. (The state, as it happened, proved not to have the courage of its convictions, and Laibach was soon back onstage.)
The fall of European Communism and the breakup of Yugoslavia had the paradoxical effect of retro-actively making Laibach seem prophetic but also of sapping some of their power. With actual fascism/nationalism of the tank-using, civilian-slaughtering kind rampant in Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo, suddenly Laibach’s restaging of a kind of stylized totalitarian ritual became less of a comment on the invisible underpinnings (and potential future eruptions) of the state system they were criticizing and more of a redundancy, or worse. But the larger NSK collective, which they had founded, was prospering; most notably, the five-person Irwin group of visual artists (currently well displayed at the Venice Biennale) was steadily climbing to prominence. The theatrical component of NSK, now called the Cosmokinetic Cabinet Noordung, was less consistent than Irwin, but they did succeed in mounting the world’s first theatrical performance in zero gravity. That unlikely event Look place aboard a Russian cosmonaut-training aircraft in December 1999. With NSK going from strength to strength, Laibach faded into studio seclusion for seven years.
It was therefore all the more gratifying a surprise that their reappearance in late July, in their cradle, the heavily industrialized Slovenian mining town of Trbovlje, was a resounding success–no longer for the band’s threats to state power but simply on the level of their formidable onstage skills and “musical” content. The occasion was the unveiling of their new album, WAT (“We Are Time”), and gone were the band’s trademark pair of bare-chested Aryan drummer boys, replaced by two conventionally attractive women in majorette uniforms making exactly the same moves, only now with a decidedly different effect. The band’s dark sense of humor, always apparent to the discerning, was more explicit, not just as usual in the lyrics: The evening started with a pompous taped welcome message in heavily accented English, greeting everyone present and wishing for their enjoyment of the forthcoming “musical program.” (Following which, of course, the sonic onslaught.) At a postconcert party held in their favorite alpine hut atop the nearby mountain of Kum, Laibach founder Dejan Knez observed that in the end, all their famously controversial provocations will fade away, and it’ll be Laibach’s recordings that are remembered. On the evidence of WAT, there will be reason to recollect the later, not just the groundbreaking earlier, industrial production of old Eastern Europe’s most abrasively transcendent noise artists. Unaccountably enough, yet triumphantly, Laibach lives.
***
Michael Benson is a Ljubljana-based writer and filmmaker.
COPYRIGHT 2003 Artforum International Magazine, Inc.
-
ANNALS OF EXPLORATION
For the past eight years, the vintage spacecraft known as the Galileo Orbiter has been tracing a complex path between Jupiter’s four large moons. During this time, it has made detailed scientific observations and taken thousands of high-resolution photographs, beaming them to Earth, half a billion miles away. On September 21st, Galileo’s extended tour of Jupiter’s satellites will end, and it will hurtle directly toward the immense banded clouds and spinning storms of the largest planet in the solar system.
As the orbiter plummets toward Jupiter’s atmosphere, several of its observational instruments will send a live transmission to Earth, and this data stream could prove highly illuminating. Galileo may be able to confirm the existence of a rocky ring close to the planet—a feature that has long been suspected. Other instruments will convey information about the density and composition of the mysterious, smokelike “gossamer rings” suspended inside the orbit of Amalthea, a moonlet near Jupiter.
At 2:57 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, Galileo will be travelling at a speed of thirty miles per second, and its boxy octagonal frame will start glowing red. Seconds later, it will be white-hot. By 3 p.m., many of its eighty-five thousand components will have separated from each other, and will continue to break up, becoming a hail of rapidly liquefying shrapnel. By the time the spacecraft’s remains are three hundred miles inside Jupiter’s atmosphere, where the temperature is twelve hundred degrees, all its aluminum components will have vaporized. At six hundred miles, its titanium parts will disintegrate. Jupiter is a gaseous planet, with a radius of forty-four thousand miles—big enough to contain all the other planets and moons of the solar system—and Galileo will have hardly penetrated its outermost atmospheric layer. Having just crossed Jupiter’s threshold, it will vanish, leaving no clues of its earthly origin or its complicated mission.
Obliteration is precisely what NASA intends for the spacecraft. The reason is that Galileo may still harbor some signs of life on Earth: microorganisms that have survived since its launch from the Kennedy Space Center, in Florida, in 1989. If the orbiter were left to circle Jupiter after running out of propellant (barring an intervention, this would likely happen within a year), it might eventually crash into Europa, one of Jupiter’s large moons. In 1996, Galileo conducted the first of eight close flybys of Europa, producing breathtaking pictures of its surface, which suggested that the moon has an immense ocean hidden beneath its frozen crust. These images have led to vociferous scientific debate about the prospects for life there; as a result, NASA officials decided that it was necessary to avoid the possibility of seeding Europa with alien life-forms. And so the craft has been programmed to commit suicide, guaranteeing a fiery, spectacular end to one of the most ambitious, tortured, and revelatory missions in the history of space exploration.
Although Europa wasn’t the only target of Galileo’s camera during its years in space, its pictures of this weirdly fissured sphere—many of which show icebergs that apparently rafted into new positions before being refrozen into the moon’s ice crust—produced euphoria among planetary scientists in the late nineties. They now speculate that Europa’s global ocean may be more than thirty miles deep, which would mean that the moon has considerably more water than Earth. As Richard Terrile, a member of the NASA division that designed Galileo, has said, “How often is an ocean discovered? The last one was the Pacific, by Balboa, and that was five hundred years ago.”
The orbiter also conducted forty flybys of planets and moons, far more than any other spacecraft. It was the first to swing close to an asteroid; the first to orbit one of the outer planets; the first to document fire fountains erupting from the surface of Jupiter’s volcanic moon, Io; and the first to fly through a plume from Io, a lurid yellow-orange sphere with an estimated three hundred volcanoes erupting at any given time. In July, 1994, Galileo provided direct observation of fragments of the Shoemaker-Levy 9 comet slamming into Jupiter; these collisions produced explosions more powerful than that of the largest H-bomb.
In recent years, when the mission was directed from Earth by a skeleton crew on a low budget and had absorbed more than four times as much of Jupiter’s fierce radiation field as it had been designed to withstand, Galileo’s systems faltered frequently, but it continued to make discoveries. Last November, for example, its scanner registered the presence of up to nine tiny moons orbiting close to Jupiter. In June, 2000, it oddly failed to recognize the bright star cluster Delta Velorium, which flickers in Vela, a constellation that can be seen in the Southern Hemisphere. Subsequent observations from Earth confirmed that this group of five stars contains a dual-sun system, with one of its component parts periodically eclipsing the other, resulting in the variable light output that puzzled the spacecraft’s instrument. Galileo thus became the first interplanetary space mission ever to make an interstellar discovery.
Conceived by NASA in the early seventies, Galileo had a rocky beginning; its early history was marked by a series of delays. Its entire flight plan had to be redesigned five times, both because its technical specifications kept changing and because the positions of the planets shifted between launch dates. It was trucked back and forth between California and Florida, and was disassembled, cleaned, stored, and then reassembled. Although the orbiter was an extremely sophisticated piece of technology for the seventies, when it finally went into space, in 1989, many of its systems were already out of date. (Its main processors were rebuilt versions of the RCA 1802 chip, which was used to run primitive video games like Pong.)
Galileo’s most critical pre-launch problem was a woefully underpowered solid-fuel booster that could barely propel the craft out of Earth’s orbit. It was able to get as far as Mars or Venus, but reaching the outer planets appeared to be impossible. Galileo had been specifically designed for shuttle deployment; after the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger in January, 1986, a newly safety-conscious NASA had decided that the orbiter’s original, liquid-fuelled booster—which was more powerful but also potentially more dangerous than a solid-fuel device—couldn’t be lofted alongside the shuttle’s human cargo. The spacecraft seemed to be on the verge of a one-way trip to the Smithsonian.
Trajectory specialists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory set to work, attempting to figure out how to get Galileo to Jupiter with what amounted to a lawnmower engine under the hood. The man who eventually solved this puzzle was Roger Diehl.
I spoke with Diehl, who still works at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, in July. He told me that his first idea was to get the spacecraft to Mars, and then use that planet’s gravity to hurl it all the way to Jupiter. “I would go to bed at night, and my wife said she could even hear me talking about trajectories in my sleep,” he recalled. But he eventually realized that because Mars had swung from its ideal position during one of Galileo’s launch delays, that approach wouldn’t work. “It turns out that Mars is so small that if you go out of your way to fly by Mars to get a gravity assist you usually won’t get a benefit,” Diehl said. “So then I said, ‘Well, let’s launch to Venus.’ ”
This was hardly an obvious solution. Venus is in the inner solar system, and Jupiter is very far in the opposite direction. Moreover, this approach posed a significant thermal problem: Galileo had not been designed to travel closer to the sun before heading toward the frigid space around Jupiter. “If anyone had talked to a spacecraft person, there would have been a reluctance. They would have said, ‘No, don’t do that,’ ” Diehl said, laughing.
But he came up with a daring new flight plan anyway. Galileo would fly to Venus, curve back, swing around the Earth, then fly around Earth a second time exactly two years later; this trajectory would act like a slingshot, flinging Galileo all the way to Jupiter. Diehl realized that such a course would take several more years than the original plan, but he was undeterred. “I said to myself, ‘I’m going to think of the problem as doing a tour of the planets of the solar system, with the goal of getting to Jupiter,’ ” he recalled. “I didn’t care how many years it would take.”
Diehl presented his boss, Bob Mitchell, with the unlikely scheme in August of 1986. Mitchell approved the concept, which was dubbed veega, for “Venus Earth Earth Gravity Assist.” Within days, Jet Propulsion Laboratory designers came up with a way to save Galileo from the harsh temperatures near Venus: they could attach lightweight, strategically placed sun shields that would protect it from intense heat.
In the next several months, another scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Lou D’Amario, substantially improved Diehl’s initial concept; for example, he expanded Galileo’s itinerary, modifying its trajectory to make it fly past two asteroids. In the end, the veega approach would require six years to propel the spacecraft to Jupiter, double the flight time of Galileo’s original plan.
Diehl considers his revision of Galileo’s trajectory, which effectively saved the mission, the highlight of his career. “My car license plate says ‘veega,’ ” Diehl said. “Every morning, I go out and I see the word.”
Galileo was successfully deployed from the space shuttle Atlantis on October 18, 1989, seven years after its original launch date. It spent the next year making its detour to Venus. In December, 1990, Galileo began its “Earth-1” maneuver: the first Earth flyby. This happened to coincide with the buildup to the first Gulf War. NASA had to inform the North American Aerospace Defense Command that the blip that would appear on its radar screens on December 8th—an incredibly fast-moving object that might well seem to originate from the Middle East—was not an enemy missile but a robotic spacecraft coming from Venus.
Throughout the entire first part of its journey into space, Galileo’s umbrella-shaped high-gain antenna, intended to be its main communications link to the Earth from Jupiter, had remained snugly folded at one end of the craft. It was the largest such device ever to have been sent out of Earth’s orbit. The plan was to deploy it only after the orbiter had receded far enough from the sun—because it, too, had originally been designed to operate in the bitter-cold temperatures of the outer solar system. In the meantime, the spacecraft would rely on a smaller, much slower antenna that was intended to be used only close to Earth.
In April, 1991, when Galileo was nearing the cooler climes of the asteroid belt, which is between Mars and Jupiter, the time had come to open the high-gain antenna and begin pulsing data toward Earth, at an optimal rate of a hundred and thirty-four kilobytes per second. Galileo was designed to have enough bandwidth to fire home one picture per minute, while also transmitting information from its other instruments.
But when the Jet Propulsion Laboratory finally ordered Galileo to open this key device, it stuck. Scientists running the mission were devastated: without a means of sending back high volumes of data, Galileo would be severely hobbled. Within a week of the antenna failure, two engineering teams were formed at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. One was dedicated to getting the high-gain antenna unstuck. The other had to figure out how to rescue the mission without the use of the antenna; it was made up primarily of telecommunications specialists from the Deep Space Network. This division often provided NASA with a “million-mile screwdriver”—that is, a way of fixing a spacecraft by sending radio signals from Earth.
Leslie Deutsch, then the head of research and development for the Deep Space Network, is a garrulous but precise mathematician. “This was a crisis,” he recalled in a recent conversation. “I got together with a few people, and we did some brainstorming. First, we said, ‘Suppose we don’t change anything. What’s the data rate going to be when we get to Jupiter, if we have to use this low-gain antenna?’ ” The answer was ten bits per second, which translated to about one picture a month—and then only if Galileo’s ten other scientific instruments weren’t in use. Such a data rate was pitifully inadequate; in space, complex phenomena must often be photographed many hundreds of times before they can be properly understood.
Instead of attempting to change the spacecraft’s hardware, the Deep Space Network rescue squad began thinking about how it could improve Galileo’s information-processing capabilities. There was one possibility: Galileo’s fundamental software could be rewritten. To accomplish this feat, the onboard computer had to be powerful enough to handle the more advanced algorithms employed in the updated code. “The computer system on Galileo was ancient,” Deutsch said. “So we looked into what kind of microprocessors were on board, and how much memory there was. And there was good news and bad news.”
The bad news was that Galileo’s computer processors were so old that their original designers would need to be brought out of retirement for consultation. The good news was that, shortly before being launched into space, Galileo had been outfitted with twice as many memory chips as its designers originally intended; engineers had been worried that they were vulnerable to damage by radiation absorbed during the long journey in space. But after nineteen months in flight all the orbiter’s memory chips were still functioning, which allowed Deutsch’s team to do something that had never been attempted: change all a spacecraft’s software applications in midflight. Updating the software would enable the team to introduce advanced data-compression techniques, which would help make it possible for Galileo to send useful pictures and other valuable information from Jupiter over the low-gain antenna. Galileo would now be capable of sending more than two hundred pictures per month, along with other data. This rate was considerably slower than originally planned, and some of Galileo’s objectives would have to be modified or abandoned. But the mission could still accomplish more than seventy per cent of its goals.
It took years, but by the time the orbiter completed its first sweep around Jupiter its software had been fully replaced. It was a move with unprecedented risks—“a complete brain transplant over a four-hundred-million-mile radio link,” as one team paper put it—and any error could have meant losing the spacecraft. But the update was necessary, and the code transfer was flawless.
One problem remained: Galileo could collect information much faster than it could send it back. Its designers needed to find a way to store images, so that they could be slowly transmitted back to Earth. The orbiter, it turned out, had a tape recorder on board. Manufactured by the Odetics Corporation, in California, it was practically indistinguishable from the reel-to-reel recorders that were attached to the higher-end stereo systems of the sixties and seventies. Though the machine was practically obsolete, it became one of Galileo’s most important features.
The recorder had been incorporated into the orbiter’s design for one reason: to back up data from its atmospheric probe, which was scheduled to tunnel into Jupiter’s clouds in 1995, when Galileo arrived at the planet’s doorstep. This snub-nosed device would release its heat shield, deploy a parachute, and transmit information about Jupiter’s atmosphere back to the orbiter as it sank into oblivion. The whole procedure was supposed to unfold over the course of an hour. During that time, the probe’s findings would be relayed from Galileo back to Earth.
After the failure of the high-gain antenna, however, the tape recorder became a critical instrument. Galileo’s handlers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory realized that it would be necessary to store all the incoming images and other scientific data gathered by its instruments during its flybys of Jupiter’s moons. That information could then be fed into Galileo’s computers (using the new data-compression software) and slowly transmitted back to Earth during the months-long lulls when the craft was travelling between Jupiter’s moons.
The magnetic tape spooled in Galileo’s tape recorder became a thread on which the mission’s destiny hung. The entire system had been jerry-rigged, but it worked. Galileo began slowly transmitting spectacular images of Jupiter and its moons to Earth, where an upgraded antenna system picked up the spacecraft’s slow, faint signals.
In March, 1996, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory team assigned the task of fixing the jammed antenna finally gave up. One analysis attributes the malfunction to a design flaw that was exacerbated by vibrations sustained when the antenna was hauled repeatedly between Florida and California during the years of launch delays.
Even before the scientists at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory finished updating Galileo’s software, the orbiter was not completely useless. In October, 1991, it took the first high-resolution images of an asteroid. Because the process of downloading photographs was so slow, it was instructed to send them back in fragments. Paul Geissler, a planetary geologist then at the University of Arizona’s Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, was one of the few researchers allowed to view them as they came in, bit by bit. “It was wonderful—we were locked into a room and sworn to silence,” Geissler said. “Because we didn’t have the high-gain antenna, the data came in as what we call ‘jail-bars.’ Galileo would send down a line, and then skip twenty lines, then send down another line, and then skip twenty lines and send down another line, and the issue was, is the asteroid in the frame at all, and should we use our precious bits to send down this frame or should we save it for the next frame?”
Geissler recalled the moment when his team realized that there was a tiny moon orbiting the asteroid. “In one of these jail-bars you could see Ida, and then it dropped off back into space again, and then there was another little blip. That’s all we had. These particular jail-bars had three lines and then skipped a bunch, and this blip was in all three of the lines, so we were dead certain that it wasn’t a cosmic-ray hit or anything like that. We knew there was something there. But we waited until another instrument on Galileo had a confirmation of it, and then we announced it.”
Although astronomers had long believed that some asteroids have moonlets, this was hard proof. It was also a reassuring illustration of what could still be achieved by Galileo, even in its extremely compromised state.
I asked Geissler, one of the leading image processors among planetary scientists, what it was like to see such unprecedented pictures before anyone else. He told me a story about the first complete shots of Ida, which had trickled in slowly, over a period of months in early 1994. “We had gotten two pictures of Ida up close, from different perspectives,” he said. “As the spacecraft flew past the asteroid, it snapped a picture, at high resolution, and then it flew a little bit farther and then snapped another picture of the same region.” Geissler realized that this separation allowed for the creation of a stereo image, which, when viewed properly, can give an object vivid three-dimensional form. “So I processed those pictures, and shot negatives of them, and brought them home—that was late on a Friday,” he told me. “I had a darkroom at home, and later that night I made eight-by-tens of these two, and I had pinched a stereoscope from work. I popped in these two wonderful eight-by-tens and became the first human being to see a stereo image of an asteroid at high resolution!” Geissler chuckled. “That entire weekend, anyone who came close to my door was dragged over—‘Look at this!’ You know, the mailman, the babysitter. That was really a thrill.”
For decades, scientists have known that three of Jupiter’s four large moons have high concentrations of frozen water. But only the hardiest optimists among them dared to speculate that liquid water could exist that far from the Sun. Europa’s average surface temperature is estimated to be two hundred and sixty degrees below zero.
In 1979, the twin Voyager space probes flew past Jupiter at approximately ten times the speed of a rifle bullet. The closest they got to Europa was about a hundred thousand miles; Galileo has veered to within a hundred and twenty-four miles of the moon. Despite being so far away, the Voyager probes compiled a photographic record suggesting—indirectly—that Europa might be warmer below its icy surface. The most obvious clue was to be found on images of Io, Jupiter’s innermost large moon. Firmly gripped by the tidal pull of its parent planet’s gravity, yet yanked the other way by the shifting gravitational fields of two of its three sister moons, Io produces seemingly endless chains of active volcanoes. At three thousand degrees, they are far hotter at their source than any volcano on Earth. Io is the most volcanic object in the solar system; the mere proximity of such an excitable object to Europa suddenly rendered the idea of subsurface water more imaginable. If such active volcanism was present on Io, why couldn’t there be similar eruptions on Europa’s seabed?
The other Voyager-era clue was more subtle and mysterious. Long, looping chains of scalloped cracks snake across large spans of Europa’s surface. These unusual patterns, which extend for hundreds of miles across the crystalline topography encircling the moon’s poles, were already clearly visible in the Voyager images. In 1996, Galileo began taking highly detailed photographs of Europa. Scientists concluded with excitement that the fissures on Europa—which were dubbed “arcuate ridges”—were unique in the solar system.
Meanwhile, a handful of planetary geologists struggled to sort out what the curved lines on Europa’s surface signified. One of them was Randy Tufts, a geologist at the University of Arizona. Tufts had been fascinated by those eerie ridges even before Galileo reached Jupiter. In a conversation I had with him a few years ago, he recalled that in the early nineties he had printed multiple copies of the low-resolution Voyager pictures and handed them out to his nonscientist friends—hoping that one of them might miraculously intuit the cause of the surface cracks. He had even taken the pictures to a glassblowing studio in downtown Tucson and asked the workers there if they had ever seen similar patterns. (They hadn’t.) “I was just casting about for any kind of analogue,” he told me.
In 1998, Tufts discovered an immense, gently curved fault line in the southern hemisphere of Europa. Galileo photographs revealed that the crack, which was subsequently named the Astypalaea Linea, extends about six hundred miles, which is comparable to the San Andreas Fault. This feature offered clear evidence that parts of Europa’s crust were slowly moving—perhaps even floating.
That summer, it occurred to Tufts that the curvature exhibited by both the Astypalaea Linea and the arcuate ridges could be caused by the immense gravitational pull of Jupiter, which has three hundred times the mass of Earth. The linked curves of the arcuate ridges, he realized, could be explained by the fact that Jupiter does not exert a consistent amount of force on Europa. The planet pulls more strongly on the moon when the two bodies happen to be closer together. “Since Europa’s elliptical orbit sometimes takes it farther away from Jupiter, the amount of stretching it undergoes kind of relaxes a little bit,” he explained. Cracks start propagating—but then, as Europa recedes from Jupiter, they stop. Because Europa’s Jupiter-facing hemisphere rocks back and forth during each orbit, by the time the gravitational stresses pick up again they’re oriented in a slightly different direction.
With the help of Greg Hoppa, an orbital-dynamics specialist, Tufts plotted the effect of these fluctuating force levels; he ended up with looping cracks that look just like the ones on Europa. That was quite a breakthrough, but the team’s next insight was even more significant: the whole process couldn’t happen without the existence of a large body of subsurface water to exert tidal pressure from below. Ice crusted on solid rock could never be affected so much. The tides on Europa are much higher than those on Earth, reaching almost a hundred feet; when Jupiter pulls these enormous subsurface bulges of water in its direction, Tufts concluded, the ice on the surface begins to crack.
In the end, Tufts’s insight is appealingly straightforward. By studying the elegant shapes on Europa’s surface, he divined what lay beneath. “Later, I found myself sort of apologizing for its simplicity,” he said. “And people said, ‘Well, you know, some of the best ideas in science are very simple ones.’ They’re often so simple that everyone sees right through them.” Tufts was excited by the idea that life might exist on Europa. “It always seemed to me that if we found life someplace else it would give us a vastly new perspective on existence,” he told me. “And we would probably realize that we weren’t quite so important as we thought we were.” He frowned thoughtfully. “I mean, it might take us down a peg, which always could be useful.”
Randy Tufts died last year, at the age of fifty-three, from a bone-marrow disorder. Not long before his death, he was working with scientists on plans for an orbiter that would investigate Europa’s ocean more closely. In 2002, the project was cancelled, owing to budget cuts.
In late July, I called Arthur C. Clarke at his home in Colombo, Sri Lanka, and asked him to comment on Galileo’s impending death. Clarke has long been fascinated by Europa; it figures prominently in the sequels to “2001: A Space Odyssey.” In particular, I wondered if he shared NASA’s concern that if Galileo were to crash into the distant moon it could transfer microbes from Earth to Europa’s ocean. Clarke didn’t answer directly, instead suggesting that I read an old tale of his, “Before Eden,” written in 1961. “It’s all about the danger that we might contaminate new worlds,” he said.
The story is about a scouting expedition to the South Pole of Venus, which is described as being “a hundred degrees hotter than Death Valley in midsummer.” The expedition leaves behind a single human artifact—a bag of waste. It ends up contaminating a strange Venusian life-form that the expedition had discovered there, thus ending its evolution. I concluded that Clarke probably endorsed NASA’s plan to destroy Galileo.
I spoke with Leslie Deutsch about his reaction to the decision, and he said he was initially angry, though he understood the rationale. Over the years, Deutsch admitted, he had become emotionally attached to the distant robot emissary, adding that this would be only the second time that NASA had deliberately destroyed a functioning spacecraft. When I asked Bill O’Neil, Galileo’s long-serving project director and one of the key architects of the effort to save the mission, what his reaction had been when he’d heard of the decision, he mulled it over for a few days, then sent me an e-mail. Galileo’s end would bring a personal sense of satisfaction at what had been achieved, he wrote. Still, he found it ironic that “Galileo Galilei only got house arrest by his sponsor the Roman Catholic Church for discovering things they didn’t want to be true, whereas our Project Galileo gets a death sentence from NASA for its greatest discovery: the prospect of life on Europa.” ?
THE NEW YORKER (PRE EDITING), September 7. 2003
SEPTEMBER SONG: REQUIEM FOR A SPACE PROBE
By MICHAEL BENSON
-
From the point of view of the vintage Galileo Orbiter, which has been tracing a complicated, cat’s-cradle trajectory among the four largest moons of Jupiter for eight years now, September 21st is bound to be an interesting day. If the camera of the spindly craft hadn’t been left shuttered after two hazardous close passes of the explosively volcanic moon Io in late 2001 and early 2002, leaving the robot essentially blind to visible light for the last two years, Galileo would witness an ominous, impressive sight. The immense banded bulk of Jupiter, by far the Solar System’s largest planet, will balloon inexorably in front of the probe as it hurtles closer than it ever has before to the Jovian atmosphere. To the east, the “fire and ice” pairing of Io and Europa, two of the most fascinating objects in the Solar System, will traverse the rapidly spinning storm systems at Jupiter’s day-night terminator in majestic sun-lit tandem. On the other side of the planet, Ganymede and Callisto, the outermost and larger of the “Galilean Moons” – objects discovered by the spacecraft’s namesake, a certain Pisan astronomer – will gradually near the Jovian horizon and then set as the Orbiter’s speed takes it closer and closer to their huge parent.
Within Galileo’s long rotating boom assembly, its five Fields and Particles science instruments will all be powered up; they’ve been conducting a live, real-time transmission to Earth since February 28th. Only two parts will be moving on the entire spacecraft: the upper, or “spun” part of Galileo, which actually constitutes the majority of the Orbiter, and which has been turning at about three revolutions per minute for almost the full duration of its fourteen years in space, and a tiny internal scanner motor in the craft’s Energetic Particle Detector, which constantly shifts the position of the detector within the instrument to allow it to survey the entire sky.
Six million miles away in a direction indistinguishable from that of the Sun, two links in the global chain of 70 meter wide deep-dish antennas that keep an Earthly ear tilted towards such endeavors will track the signals from Galileo’s science instruments and also its engineering data, including the temperatures, pressures, and voltages of the various spacecraft systems. As the probe crosses the orbit of the boulder-like asteroidal moon Amalthea, the DSS-63 antenna outside of Madrid may pulse a command, ordering Galileo to collect and read-out data from its star tracker – a device used to help orient the craft. This information will be used to search for occultations of guide-stars, potential evidence of a suspected rocky ring close to the planet. As Madrid turntables eastwards, rotating over the horizon of distant Earth, thin bars of ruby within the cryogenically cooled receiver housed in multiple tanks of liquid nitrogen at the focal point of one of NASA’s oldest tracking stations, DSS-14 at Goldstone, California, will vibrate very slightly as they pick up Galileo’s faint beacon, amplifying the steady stream of information piping from the craft’s science instruments as they convey information about the intensely radioactive inner magnetosphere of Jupiter, as well as the wispy, smoke-like “gossamer rings” weightlessly suspended inside the orbit of tiny Amalthea. Traveling at the speed of light, the spacecraft’s radio signal will take 52 minutes to span the gulf between Jupiter and Earth.
Only two human artifacts have ever penetrated this close to the planet before: Galileo’s own auxiliary atmospheric probe, which plowed into Jupiter on arrival in December of 1995, and tiny Pioneer 11, the second outer Solar System mission, which conducted an extremely close fly-by in December of 1974 on its way to Saturn.
At 12:42 p.m. PDT Galileo will whip behind Jupiter as seen from Earth, and all telemetry will abruptly cut off, eclipsed by night-shrouded clouds. Seven minutes later and while traveling at a speed of 48 kilometers per second relative to the Jovian atmosphere, Galileo’s boxy, instrument-festooned octagonal frame and the leading edges of its three extended, spinning booms will start to glow red. Within 30 seconds they’ll have snapped off, but will continue tumbling behind the now white-hot main body of the hurtling craft. By the time the Galileo Orbiter reaches the one-bar level of the atmosphere, many of the 85,000 component parts of perhaps the most complex interplanetary spacecraft ever build will have separated from each other as well, though they’ll continue burning into the atmosphere in a hail of disintegrating shrapnel. When its remains reach a depth of about 500 kilometers below Jupiter’s hydrogen cloud-tops, a region where the temperature soars to 660 Celsius, all of the Orbiter’s aluminum components will have melted, then vaporized. At a depth of 1,000 kilometers, its titanium parts will finally also melt, then turn into vapor. Rendered into a soupy haze of dispersing metal atoms, Galileo will have become an undifferentiated part of Jupiter, with no clues left as to its Earthly origins, its mission, or its original ungainly, inquisitive, insectoid shape.
Considering that Jupiter is 71,500 kilometers in radius – big enough to contain all the other planets and moons of the Solar System with plenty of room to spare – Galileo will barely have penetrated its outermost atmospheric layer.
Thus the most complex, tortured, but ultimately redeemed mission in the annals of deep space exploration ends with a commanded suicide.
*Actually, it’s something of a miracle that the probe ever got to Jupiter in the first place. Galileo’s ultimate trajectory can be traced backwards, through a loopy series of linked, ever-shifting elliptical orbits around Jupiter and among its satellites, and then further back still, through the outer and then inner Solar System, in a mesmerizingly cyclical then circuitous odyssey filled with averted disasters and big triumphs. Leading the latter is a single discovery: that Jupiter’s opaque, cue-ball smooth moon Europa almost certainly has an immense liquid water ocean under its frozen surface crust – a realization which in turn has led to a vociferous scientific debate about the prospects for life there.
Although Jupiter’s glassine moon certainly wasn’t the only target of Galileo’s cameras during its eclectic fourteen years in space, the implications of the probe’s pictures of this weirdly fissured sphere – many of which show icebergs that have apparently rafted into new positions before being re-frozen into Europa’s granite-hard, but apparently quite thin, global ice-cap – produced a collective euphoria in the planetary sciences community in the late 1990’s. As Richard Terrile of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory put it, “How often is an ocean discovered? The last one was the Pacific, by Balboa, and that was five hundred years ago.”
In the end, Galileo’s record reads like a litany of firsts. It conducted more fly-bys of more planets and moons than any other probe in the history of the genre (forty, including repeated encounters). It was the first to swing close by an asteroid; the first to discover a tiny moon orbiting an asteroid, on its second foray into the asteroid belt; the first to examine the third stone from the Sun, a.k.a. Earth, on a classic fly-by trajectory; the first to discover life on Earth (in an intriguing test experiment devised by Carl Sagan); the first to orbit one of the immense outer planets; the first directly to observe fire fountains erupting from the surface of Jupiter’s moon Io; and the first actually to fly through a plume from Io, a lurid yellow-orange firecracker with an estimated 200-300 volcanoes erupting across its pitted face at any one time (a finding itself attributable to Galileo). In July of 1994, while still outbound, Galileo provided long-distance direct observations as fragments of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 slammed into Jupiter at radical speeds, producing multiple fireballs that rose over the planet’s limb – a series of frightening detonations more powerful than the largest H-bombs and entirely invisible from Earth. Another first, one of the first.
During the mission’s last years, when it was run by a skeleton crew on a low budget and had taken more than four times as much of the fierce Jovian radiation as it had been designed to withstand, Galileo’s systems faltered frequently, but it continued to come up with discoveries. In November of last year, for example, its star trackers registered the presence of up to nine tiny moons orbiting close to Jupiter. In 2000, its on-board magnetometer came up with the strongest evidence yet that a liquid water ocean exists – right now; contemporaneously – under Europa’s ice. Galileo even made a discovery outside the Solar System. In June of 2000, its star tracker suddenly failed to recognize the bright star cluster Delta Velorium, which flares brightly (and, as it appears, unsteadily) in the southern-hemisphere constellation Vela. Subsequent observations from Earth confirmed that this grouping of stars – which have a greater magnitude than the North Star, and which has been catalogued and observed since ancient times – in fact contain a dual-sun system, with one of its component parts periodically eclipsing the other, resulting in the variable light output that puzzled the spacecraft’s instrument.
Galileo thus became the first interplanetary probe ever to make an interstellar discovery.
*
Given this litany of accomplishments, which outstrips that of any living human astronomer, it may come as a surprise that this was also the single most troubled mission in the history of robotic space exploration. Its problems started well before launch, and they didn’t end there. I’ve been keeping an eye on Galileo for years, mostly out of sheer fascination with its pictures of Europa and Io, many of which exceed the most improbable visions of 20th century science fiction, and during that time whenever I got a chance to meet some of Galileo’s Earth-bound handlers, I took it. These people have what amounts to the most fascinating desk job of all time: they get to explore strange new worlds, and boldly go where no one has gone before, all in symbiosis with a two-ton spacecraft that’s six million miles away.
In the spring of 2000 I met Bill O’Neil, a square-jawed, silver-haired engineer who served as Galileo mission director for the bulk of its main mission to and around Jupiter. O’Neil described the turbulent ups and downs of the probe’s ongoing journey with the ongoing muted euphoria – a low-key exultation really – of someone who’d actually done it: he’d brought it off, beating the odds that had so mysteriously stacked up against the mission.
Although O’Neil has played a major role in almost every American robotic space mission since the first Surveyor touched down flawlessly on the surface of the Moon in 1966, Galileo dominated his career. He worked on the project for eighteen years—originally as the manager of its science and mission design, then as project manager for the entirety of its main mission to and around Jupiter. O’Neil described Galileo’s sorry state as it endured a series of launch delays around the time the Challenger shuttle exploded in 1986. Some were due to that tragedy, some not. Galileo’s entire flight plan had to be redesigned an unprecedented five times as the rocket power available to take it out of Earth orbit diminished (for various reasons) and the configurations of the planets shifted (for reasons easily explainable with reference to Newton). The probe was repeatedly trucked back and forth between California and Florida; it was disassembled, cleaned, stored, and then re-assembled; hair turned gray as the mission went from its late 70’s design to its actual 1989 launch to its extremely attenuated Jupiter trajectory and then finally on to a series of revelatory encounters with the planet’s eye-opening satellites.
One of his stories in particular stuck in my mind. It involved an obscure JPL trajectory specialist named Roger Diehl, who had single-handedly saved the mission, which had been in serious trouble even before it left the ground. Galileo’s most critical pre-launch problem was that it was saddled with a woefully underpowered solid-fuel upper stage booster that could barely get it out of Earth orbit. This circumstance had come about because after the Challenger disaster, a newly (and as it now appears, temporarily) safety-conscious NASA decided that Galileo’s more powerful Centaur upper stage – which was liquid-fuelled and therefore more dangerous than its weaker solid-fuelled alternate – couldn’t be lofted along with the Shuttle’s human cargo. And Galileo had been designed for Shuttle deployment.
The result was that, after nearly a decade of development, testing and assembly, the spacecraft was on the verge of a one-way trip to the Smithsonian. JPL responded by deploying its best talent and kicking into high gear. Soon after the Challenger explosion, mission design manager Bob Mitchell assembled a cutting-edge team of trajectory specialists, including Roger Diehl, Lou D’Amario, and Denis Burns. Their mandate was to figure out how get what amounted to a Mercedes Benz of a space-probe to Jupiter with a lawn mower engine under the hood.
It was Diehl who ultimately came up with the exquisitely unlikely trajectory actually capable of getting the mission to its destination. Late in July, with the doomed robot riding its last orbit in towards Jupiter, I called him at JPL. “Yeah, Galileo,” he recalled ruefully. “You know, all these deep space missions have their problems, but Galileo really seemed to have more than its fair share. We used to have a party every year, a ‘five years to launch’ party, and then a ‘three years to launch’ party, and what was funny is that each year the numbers of years would jump around – you know, forwards, and then backwards. Finally at one of the later parties we had a plot up that showed exactly where we thought we had been at each party over the years.” A disembodied laugh tumbled through static.
I asked him what had led to his mission-saving epiphany, and Diehl explained that the existing upper stage only had enough juice to get Galileo to Mars or Venus – intriguing Solar System objects to be sure, but not ones it had been designed to study. So his first efforts were directed at getting the spacecraft to Mars and then using that planet’s gravity to sling it onwards to Jupiter. It turned out, however, that as Galileo’s launch kept on getting postponed, Mars had moved inexorably onwards from its ideal placement in between Earth and Jupiter. Getting a boost from the Red Planet was less and less of a usable proposition.
“So then the next thing that I recall was saying ‘Well, let’s launch to Venus,’” Diehl said. I pointed out that, apart from that planet being in an entirely counter-intuitive direction – Venus is in the inner Solar System; Jupiter’s a very great distance in the opposite direction – Bill O’Neil had told me that Galileo had never been designed to go inwards and closer to the Sun before going outwards to the frigid space around Jupiter. Hadn’t that presented a thermal problem? Yeah, Diehl responded, but the mission was on the verge of cancellation anyway, and his boss Bob Mitchell had said consider anything. Even though the spacecraft’s designers might’ve been appalled at the idea of heading towards the Sun rather than away, given a workable trajectory, and perhaps with some kind of heat shielding, that could sort itself out later.
“I remember I read that when a person gets pumped up to really work a problem, the adrenaline flows,” he said. “Its almost like you’re working at a level that you haven’t worked at before. And I sort of experienced something like that.” At this point even the tone of Diehl’s voice had subtly changed – gradually shifting to a higher pitch as his words came faster. “I would go to bed at night, and my wife said she could even hear me talking about trajectories in my sleep. And then I’d wake up in the morning and I would have something that I would immediately want to try.
“And so the night before I found the first trajectory which identified the concept, I remember thinking ‘I’m going to totally ignore Mars.’ In my previous trajectory work I had done a lot of the initial tour designs for how you fly by the different satellites of Jupiter. So I said to myself ‘I’m going to think of the problem as doing a tour of the planets of the Solar System with the goal of getting to Jupiter.’ And I didn’t care how many years it would take to do it.”
There was a pause at the other end of the line. “You know, in the back of my mind I felt that there was something out there, and why haven’t I found it, I know it’s there,” Deihkl finally resumed. “And throwing Mars out of the equation was like opening the flood-gates to being able to find it. And the next morning I went in, and within fifteen minutes I found it.”
His trajectory required that Galileo return from Venus and swing past the Earth again not once but twice on its way to Jupiter. After putting up some initial resistance, the spacecraft’s designers soon came up with light-weight thermal shielding to protect the spacecraft from the harsh Venusian sun, and meanwhile Diehl’s colleague Lou D’Amario went on to take the initial trajectory concept, quickly dubbed VEEGA (“Venus Earth Earth Gravity Assist”), and spent months improving it substantially, building in more favorable Earth departure and Jupiter arrival times and incorporating two asteroid fly-bys for good measure. Flight time from Earth to Jupiter had gone from three to six years, but it seemed a small price to pay – particularly given a resuscitated mission and some worthy science objectives along the way.
I asked Diehl if he thought he had received the recognition he deserved. “Well, the fact that Galileo ultimately flew a trajectory that I came up with, that was the ultimate high for me,” he answered slowly. “I mean, nothing could replace that. But yeah, I was well known and at the same time within the team I think it caused a little bit of… well, a little bit of hard feelings. You know, everyone was working equally hard, and I was getting a lot of recognition. And at JPL you have a lot of people who are very high achievers. So you know, in one way I felt very good but at the same time there were these hard feelings. So it was a little bit tempered by that.”
There was another ruminative pause. “But to this day I’m still very proud, and my car license plate says ‘VEEGA,’” Diehl concluded. “So every morning I go out and I see the word.” A pleased chuckle floated across the line from the air-conditioned blaze of noontime Pasadena.
*
Diehl’s brainstorm allowed Galileo to be taken out of storage and reassembled in the womb-like clean rooms of JPL, but the game wasn’t over, not by a long shot – and we’re talking here about one of the longest shots ever conceived and executed by the species. By the time Galileo was actually deployed from the reactivated Space Shuttle in 1989, seven years after its original launch date, its on-board processors were six generations behind what anyone with a couple thousand bucks could buy at the local neighborhood PC store. (They were in fact radiation-hardened, rebuilt versions of the RCA 1802 chip – the same processor which ran the most primitive early video arcade game, “Pong.”) And by the time Galileo’s underpowered upper stage fired, sending the craft puttering towards Venus to pick up momentum, one of its most important component parts, which was originally manufactured in Florida, had already vibrated its way across the full span of the continental United States in the back of a truck four times.
Throughout the entire first part of the trip, the spacecraft’s umbrella-shaped high gain antenna – intended to be its main communications link to the Earth from way out at Jupiter – had been snugly folded, exactly as an umbrella generally is in the absence of rain, i.e., along a central spine projecting from its center. The importance of this particular device can’t be overestimated: Jupiter’s so far from Earth that if you tried to drive your Ford Galaxie there, it would take about 79 million years, floored. The plan was to deploy Galileo’s vital main antenna only in late 1991, after the probe had receded far enough from the Sun, nineteen months after launch.
But first came “Earth-1” – the first Earth fly-by, which happened to coincide with the first Gulf War, to the point where JPL had to inform NORAD (the North American Air Defense Command) that the hurtling blip that would appear on their radar screens on December 8th – an incredibly fast-moving object that might well appear to originate from the Middle East, not Venus, and be on a ballistic trajectory towards the continental United States, not the outer Solar System – was actually a NASA-origin space probe, and not one of those famous disappearing Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction.”
“I’ll tell you, I can’t really explain this,” O’Neil had said to me in Paris, “but Earth-1 was the most euphoric professional event of my life. Now why wouldn’t it have been arriving at Jupiter, when everything worked perfectly?” Yeah, I wondered, why not? We sat there together, baffled, until finally I ventured a longish explanation: they were sitting there at JPL on Earth, had finally managed to get their machine out into the wine-dark etcetera, and there it was already coming back to them, but only temporarily, and showing them themselves, in fact all of us here on this marvelous blue-white sphere; of course you were euphoric…
O’Neil cut me off in full improv. No, he said, the still-furled high gain antenna meant there weren’t any “real-time, gee-whiz images.” Instead Galileo had been forced to rely on its small, stumpy, omnidirectional low gain antenna for the entire first part of the cruise, a device which had been put onboard only for near-Earth and emergency communications purposes. Such a low-wattage antenna didn’t allow for the rapid delivery of bandwidth-hogging pictures. No, Bill O’Neil’s “Earth-1” euphoria had most likely been because “everything seemed perfect. We had been through all this, and in particular, we had been to Venus, we had demonstrated that we had overcome the challenge of taking a spacecraft that was never intended to go there, there and back successfully – and the answer is, probably, that it looked like all the challenges were handled. That we had survived.”
*
His high lasted only another five months. With Galileo now heading out towards the cooler climes of the Asteroid Belt, and in fact towards the very first encounter between a robot and an asteroid, the time had come for it to open its high gain antenna and presumably begin pulsing the anticipated luxurious flood of real-time, 134 kilobytes per second data towards Earth. Galileo’s data rate was designed to give it enough bandwidth to fire one picture home from Jupiter per minute, while also feeding information from all its other science instruments simultaneously. Its antenna, in fact, was the largest ever to have been sent out of Earth orbit – so large that it had to be folded even in the cavernous confines of the Shuttle bay.
Perhaps not surprisingly, though certainly tragically, when JPL finally ordered Galileo to open this key device – it stuck. And subsequently refused to budge, no matter what they tried to do. Later analysis determined that a design flaw combined with the vibrations during all the trucking across the country were largely responsible. It was Galileo’s second potentially mission-terminating catastrophe, and it was also a devastating blow to everyone’s morale.
JPL responded by deploying its best talent and kicking into high gear. This was not the myopic Hubble Space Telescope, which could be affixed with what amounted to a monocle by visiting astronauts; Galileo was already nearing the orbit of Mars. Within a week of the antenna failure, two engineering teams were formed. One was dedicated to figuring out how to get the thing unstuck (essentially through alternately heating, then freezing, than heating the antenna by rolling the spacecraft’s aft-end towards and away from the Sun, then ordering the small antenna deployment motor to pulse; then trying multiple variations of that over a period of months while cursing through clenched teeth).
The other team was dedicated to figuring out how to make the mission work without the use of the high gain antenna. It was comprised primarily of telecommunications specialists from JPL’s Deep Space Network, and was assembled under the leadership of the head of research and development for the network, Leslie Deutsch.
The Deep Space Network has been a central node of the Information Age since well before it was called that – since the short-lived Space Age, in fact. People who’ve developed systems and procedures for the DSN have gone on to define (and sometimes profit mightily from) the protocols and standards and frequency modulations and complex decoders and other gizmos that govern that alternative universe of routers, chips, transmitters and receivers that are the backbone of the Age. And the Deep Space Network has also frequently served as what one of Deutsch’s predecessors called “a million mile screwdriver” – the only way for JPL to fix distant problematic robots, of which Galileo was not the first nor the last, though certainly the most challenging.
One day after calling Roger Diehl, and with distant Galileo already almost three million miles closer to its fatal rendezvous with Jupiter, I picked up the phone again and dialed Leslie Deutsch. I asked him what his first order of business was when the sickening realization dawned that JPL’s billion dollar flagship, now finally on its way after multiple delays, was — metaphorically at least — dead in the water. “There was a crises,” he acknowledged. “I got together with a few people, and we did some brain-storming. And we said suppose the high gain antenna never opens. Suppose it never gets any better than this? What do you think we can do? And we were doing that within a week of this event. We worked pretty fast on it. And we did some thinking.
“And first we said, suppose we don’t change anything, what’s the data rate going to be when we get to Jupiter? If we just have to continue using this low gain antenna? And if we had, we would have been a factor of ten thousand lower in data rate than we had planned for the mission. Instead of being a hundred thousand bits per second we would have been at ten bits per second.” From one picture a minute they had gone to one picture per month.
As Deutsch sketched out the disastrous scenario, I realized that in effect, a kind of transmigration of souls was necessary. The physical part of the spacecraft was out of reach – or to the extent that it was in reach, the other team, the long-distance antenna repairmen, were mandated to explore that side of the problem. With the physical spacecraft largely unchangeable, the extended hand of the DSN rescue squad could only have its effect on Galileo’s information-processing side. It could control, in other words, the bits that effect the spacecraft’s atoms; the software. This was the ghost in a machine named after a ghost, and it was changeable, not through séances or crystal balls, but through electromagnetic impulses pulsed through huge antennas.
But first the on-board computer had to be up to snuff, and ready to receive the spirit that moves the body. “The bad news was that these computer processors were ancient,” Deutsch said. Because computer chips have to be entirely re-engineered and re-built to withstand the vibrations of launch and the harsh radiation levels of deep space, most deep space missions are launched with computing power three generations older than that available in the current generation of PCs. And in the case of Galileo, Deutsch said, that lag had been compounded by all the delays since its conception.
But the good news was that shortly before launch, the spacecraft had been outfitted with twice as many memory chips as originally intended. This would be the boon allowing the Deutsch team to do something that had never been attempted before: to change the spacecraft’s software – in effect, its entire operating system – from the ground, painstakingly, in mid-flight, using the sluggish low-gain antenna. And changing the software would enable them to introduce advanced data-compression techniques into the spacecraft, which in turn would help to make it possible for Galileo to send useful pictures and other science information over the low gain antenna from as far away as Jupiter. Not nearly as fast as originally planned, but still at a rate many times faster than the dismal original estimate of 10 bits per second. The spacecraft would now be able to send several hundred images to Earth per month. Although Galileo’s instruments would now have to be pointed with the greatest of care, and although some of its science objectives would now have to be thrown out altogther, the mission, it was beginning to seem, wasn’t a complete write-off.
And there were other important elements to Deutsch’s strategy. Millions of dollars would have to be invested in adding to, and electronically ganging together, the network’s globe-girdling chain of dish antennas – work which would immediately benefit all other space missions. And the antennas themselves would also be improved, with the cryogenically cooled ruby receiver prongs at their hearts cooled down still further – in practice by placing a freezer tank within a freezer tank within a freezer tank, matrioshka doll style – to help differentiate between the spurious noise of their surrounding electronics and the distant zeros-and-ones whisper emanating from Galileo’s impossibly (or rather, it was beginning to seem, just possibly) weak and distant low gain antenna.
Perhaps inevitably, a type of low intensity warfare developed almost immediately between the telecommunications specialists that were endeavoring to figure out ways to continue the mission without the use of the high gain antenna and the engineers who were trying to open the damn thing from the ground. “The very fact that we were sanctioned bothered them, because it was like people saying they were going to fail,” said Deutsch. “And yet on our team we were always saying ‘You know, we’re doing all this great theoretical work but we’d really love never to have to put it into practice!’” He laughed. “The conflict arose when we got to the point where we had to say ‘Look, in the next six months we’ve got to make a decision on this or there’s no time to do it the other way.’ And so eventually we had to make that decision. And they were basically told, ‘Ok, now you are the second class citizens, and you have to fight for time on the spacecraft to try to do what you want to do.’”
From there on out, occasional attempts were still made to open the antenna, but they all failed. As for the intramural conflict, it mostly took the form of glares between rival encampments across the JPL cafeteria, but never escalated to the food-fight stage.
*
I had heard that some of the cerebrations built into the software solutions to Galileo’s high gain antenna problem had made their way into daily use in the wider world, and was having a hard time pinning down just which went where. So I asked Deutsch. It turns out that two innovations in particular could be traced directly to Galileo, with the first linked to the crises itself and the second pre-dating the antenna problem.
When Galileo was launched, Deutsch said, it had a coding technique built into its circuitry designed to reduce errors in the spacecraft’s signals. “It’s called a Reed-Solomon code, and was originally developed as a mathematical curiosity,” he said. “Both Reed and Solomon were consultants here. That particular code is what enabled the CD industry, compact discs. It’s two levels of that code that enable you to resist dust and scratches on a CD. And that’s a multi-billion dollar a year industry.”
The CD industry is already in decline even before Galileo’s terminal dive – but its decline has everything to do with the second great innovation which saved the mission. CD sales happen to be nose-diving because of the relative ease of trading music for free on-line – and the other concept devised by Deutsch’s team – the one necessitated directly by the antenna malfunction – was the development of a so-called “packet-based” information downlink. It was soon to be the technique enabling efficient information transfers on the Internet.
Previous to Galileo, and in fact initially on Galileo, a spacecraft’s instruments fed an ongoing live stream of telemetry to the ground – essentially an EKG reading reporting on spacecraft health and accompanied by the science results of various instruments. But there was a lot of wasted space in that feed, the Deutsch group realized – “empty” bits where a particular instrument was switched off, or simply not vital at the moment, leaving holes or useless data in a signal that was nevertheless transmitted to the ground. Galileo could no longer afford that luxury, and so by the time it got to Jupiter, the spacecraft’s instruments were putting their information in packets, storing it, compressing it, and sending it to Earth whenever time was available. Although each packet now had to have a header specifying when it had been recorded and from which instrument, the added address bits were far fewer than the subtracted empty or irrelevant ones.
The decades-long trajectory of this mission, in other words, arches over the CD revolution, then the net-based MP-3 counter-revolution, playing an integral part in both! At this stage I found myself looking down at the tiny wheels spinning in the tape recorder that was absorbing the distant words of Leslie Deutsch and considering how impossibly retro, how positively archaic, a 20th century Walkman, a device entirely without silver discs or solid-state storage capacities, actually is in 2003 – when suddenly I remembered the other key element that saved Galileo: its on-board tape recorder.
*Yes, Galileo has a tape recorder, much bigger than a Walkman, a defiantly pre-digital box of mechanized wheels-and-springs workmanship manufactured by the Odetex Corporation of California, and practically indistinguishable from other, less radiation-shielded reel-to-reel tape recorders attached to the higher-end stereo systems of the sixties and seventies. If the jammed communications dish was Galileo’s Achilles heel, its boxy archaic tape recorder became its greatest single redeeming feature, much to the surprise of everyone concerned. None of the wizardry of the Deutsch Telecom team, revolutionary though it was, would have amounted to a pile of Greek war helmets without that vintage recorder – and yet the bulky device was capable of making a “Pong”-era microchip seem about as advanced as a solar-powered cell-phone.
The tape recorder had been incorporated into Galileo’s design for one reason, and one only: to back up data from the craft’s auxiliary atmospheric probe, which was scheduled to tunnel into Jupiter’s clouds upon 1995 arrival, release its heat shield, deploy a parachute, and go about the business of uplinking information about the Jovian atmosphere as it sank into atomized oblivion. The whole procedure was supposed to unfold over the course of an hour, and was originally to happen in real time, with a live link between the atmospheric probe’s seven instruments, Galileo, and Earth. But if there were to be a technical problem – if, for example, Galileo’s high gain antenna had failed to deploy, or if the receiving station on Earth had just been struck by thirteen bolts of lightening – then that invaluable feed (another Galileo first: the first direct contact between an outer planet and Earth-origin instruments) would have been lost.
The solution was to back the probe data up on that tape recorder, and the only reason why two such recorders hadn’t been sent within the spacecraft’s bulky carapace – standard operating procedure for a mission-critical component – was that it was considered redundant to the Orbiter’s primary task. But Galileo’s tape recorder became mission-critical at the moment its JPL handlers, in evaluating their situation sans main antenna, realized that it could be used – in fact now had to be used – to store all the incoming images and other scientific data gathered by the spacecraft’s instruments during its multiple fly-bys of Jupiter’s moons.
The complex kineticism of the Jovian archipelago meant that on arrival, Galileo would necessarily have to go into a series of elongated, months-long elliptical orbits between such encounters. These delays, once thought of as necessary evils, had now become much-needed windows during which the stored fly-by pictures and other data could be fed from the recorder to Galileo’s computers (for compression by its new software) before being slowly trickled to Earth (over, you guessed it, the low gain antenna).
So the filament of magnetic-tape spooled in Galileo’s tape recorder became one of the thin threads on which the mission’s destiny hung, and took its place within the blinking gizmo-chain that was assembled to save the mission, and by the time of the probe’s first encounter with a Jovian moon, its entire operating system had indeed been replaced. It was an unprecedentedly risky move, “a complete brain transplant over a 400 million mile radio link,” as one team paper put it, and any error could have meant losing the spacecraft altogether. But it was utterly necessary. Given that it extended out across half of the Solar System, and consisted of a dialogue between human controllers and an intricate, sophisticated, flawed machine, the whole assemblage was a kind of fantastical Rube Goldberg contraption, one held together by super-cooled ruby receiver prongs the length of your pinkie, 70 meter wide dish antennas, pre-PC microchips, and a reel-to-reel tape recorder that wouldn’t have looked out of place in an “Eagles”-era recording studio. It was also a remarkable illustration of the new reach the human race has, via elongated digitized feeds and pinwheeling hardware, across a Solar System it could once only peer at with telescopes. And finally, it was a cobbled-together, seat-of-the-pants series of fixes, workarounds, and software patches in the great Jet Propulsion Laboratory tradition of deploying the virtuosos, kicking into high gear, and figuring out how to eke out a hardwired, long-distance living again.
Maybe literally so. As Deutsch pointed out, losing Galileo could have meant losing interplanetary exploration altogether. The ultimate footer of the bills, after all, is the public, as represented by its sometimes zealously budget-cutting representatives in Congress. And so the Galileo crises extended well past the fate of a single mission, and could have become a cancer in the whole tenuous enterprise of deep space exploration. The stakes, in other words, were very high, but the million mile screwdriver, it worked.
*We rewind, in a blurred digitized shriek, past the stored data of Galileo’s years of satellite touring, past the successful deployment of its Jupiter atmospheric probe, and to the mission’s second foray into the asteroid belt, ten years ago last month. Enter Paul Geissler, planetary scientist at the University of Arizona’s seriously edgy Lunar and Planetary Sciences Lab.
I first met Geissler at the annual conclave of the American Association of Astronomers’ Planetary Sciences Division, which in October of ‘99 was held in the thermal baths resort town of Abano Terme, just outside the walls of ancient Padua – the city from which Galileo first observed moons in orbit around Jupiter. He was part of a controversial but well-respected team led by an original member of the Galileo imaging team, Rick Greenberg. It included Randy Tufts and Gregg Hoppa, the lead author of a paper to be delivered at the conference. Their findings, based largely on some innovative conceptualizing of fresh Galileo images, were the first great widely accepted keystone in an effort to establish the existence of a liquid water ocean on Europa. I had come to meet Greenberg’s group because of their Europa revelations, but now I was talking to Geissler about Galileo’s second asteroidal encounter, which had brought the first positive surprise from the mission in a long time.
“Way early on, back in ’92, I was given a project to work on, and given lead authorship of that project,” he said, stirring a perfect macchiato at the conference’s outdoor café nexus, “and in 1995 we flew past the second asteroid to ever have been looked at, and the first one to have been looked at in high resolution, Ida.”Both of the spacecraft’s asteroidal encounters had been complicated by the keyhole strictures of its trickle-down data rate, which were not yet ameliorated by the solutions of Leslie Deutsch’s team. “It was wonderful, we were locked into a room and sworn to silence,” Geissler said. “Because we didn’t have a high gain antenna, the data came in as what we call ‘jail-bars.’ Galileo would send down a line, and then skip twenty lines, then send down another line, and then skip twenty lines and send down another line, and the issue was, is the asteroid in the frame at all, and should we use our precious bits to send down this frame or should we save it for the next frame?
“In one of these jail bars you could see Ida, and then it dropped off back into space again, and then there was another little “blip.” And that’s all we had, Ok? And we were sitting in this room, we were locked up together, you know, and were being threatened with ten kinds of death if we made a peep about this until we had better verification! These particular jail-bars had three lines and then skipped a bunch, and this blip was in all three of the lines, and we were dead certain that it wasn’t a cosmic ray hit or anything like that. We knew there was something there. But we waited until another instrument on Galileo that happened to be looking in the same direction at the same time had a confirmation of it, and that’s when we announced it. But there were a wonderful few weeks when we were confident of it, and we would sort of see each other in the hall and whip out this picture, you know?”
That three-pixels-wide blip eventually materialized into a punctuation mark of a moon; effectively a tiny object circling a small object. Although asteroids had been suspected of having moonlets before, this was the sheerest hypotheses-terminating confirmation possible, and it was also a reassuring illustration of what could still be achieved by Galileo even in its compromised state. The moon was soon named “Dactyl” – Dactyls being the pixyish magicians that, according to Greek legend, live on Mount Ida in Crete. No more than a kilometer and a half across, it resembled nothing so much as the small sphere occupied by the similarly diminutive prince on the cover of the most popular edition of Antoine de Saint-Exupéry’s famous children’s tale. And its parent asteroid was revealed to have an interestingly stratified, irregular topography.
Geissler, one of the leading image processors in the planetary sciences community, has frequently been among the first to get the results of Galileo’s photography. I asked him how it felt to be the first person ever to “see” something in deep space. “There was one thing that I was the first human being to see,” he responded, “and that I think was probably one of the most thrilling episodes in my career. We had gotten two pictures of Ida up close, from different perspectives. So as the spacecraft flew past the asteroid it would snap a picture, at high resolution, and then it flew a little bit farther and then snapped another picture of the same region, again at high resolution.”
He soon realized that this separation allowed for the creation of a stereo image of the kind which, when done properly, can make an object leap into vivid, three-dimensional life. “So I processed those pictures, and shot negatives of them, and brought them home, that was late on a Friday. I had a darkroom at home, and still on Friday night I made eight-by-tens of these two, and I had pinched a stereoscope from work. And late that night I popped in these two wonderful eight by tens and saw a stereo image of an asteroid for the very first time at high resolution!” He peered at me from under raised eyebrows to make sure I understood how fundamentally cool this was. “And that entire weekend anyone who came close to my door was dragged over: ‘Look at this!’ You know, the mailman, the babysitter… That was really a thrill.”
*If one had to choose a single piece of elegant inductive reasoning to serve as the most compelling example of the science findings resulting from Galileo’s Jupiter mission, it would have to be Randy Tufts’s and Gregg Hoppa’s untangling of the semantics of Europa’s lines. Europa is the ice-clad moon that was discovered to most likely have a sub-surface liquid water ocean, but that discovery, to lift a line from The Sun Also Rises, came in two ways: gradually and then suddenly. In a paper delivered in Abano Terme, Hoppa’s hour-by-hour analysis of the powerful shifting gravitational fields that play across Europa during each of the moons’ Jupiter orbits, teamed with geologist Tuft’s insights into tectonics and faulting, yielded one of the most downright aesthetic findings ever to come from space research. After a good deal of excitement over Galileo’s photographs of Europa’s rotated and then apparently re-frozen ice-bergs – provocative images, clearly, but still deemed inconclusive – Tufts and Hoppa were the “suddenly.”
Even before Galileo’s predecessor probes, the twin Voyagers, zipped through the Jupiter system at approximately the speed of a rifle bullet in 1979, scientists have known that three of the four Galilean moons have high concentrations of water ice. But only the hardiest optimists among them dared to speculate that liquid water could exist all the way out at Jupiter, more than half a billion clicks from the Sun. Europa’s average surface temperature is estimated at 100 degrees Kelvin, or about –260 degrees Fahrenheit. The North Pole in February is a steam bath by comparison.
But despite the evidence of the thermometer, two stubbornly contrarian clues surfaced in the Voyager photographic record. The most obvious was Io, Jupiter’s innermost large moon. Squeezed by the huge hand of its parent planet’s gravity, yanked the other way by the shifting gravitational fields of its three large Galilean sisters, Io produces seemingly endless chains of active volcanoes. At 3,240 degrees Fahrenheit, they are far hotter at their source than any on Earth. Io is the most volcanic object in the Solar System; the mere proximity of such an excitable object to Europa suddenly rendered sub-surface liquid water more imaginable under its ice. If such active volcanism was present on Io, why couldn’t there be some erupting from Europa’s sea bed?
The other Voyager-era clue was very subtle and mysterious – a faint whisper of potential meaning, albeit one discernable from 124 million miles out, which is the closest either probe got to Europa. (By contrast Galileo has veered to within 124 miles of the moon.) These were the long, looping chains of scalloped cracks, each joined to the next in a kind of cusp, that snake across large spans of Europa’s surface. Looking oddly like telegraph wires slung in descending, then ascending arcs – only in this case, arcs dwindling in length with each span, as though the installers had progressively run out of steam between poles – these “arcuate cycloids” extend for hundreds of miles across the crystalline topography encircling the moon’s poles. The largest of these seemingly inscrutable features were already clearly visible in the Voyager images, and Galileo had sent back many more examples at a far higher resolution. They appeared to be unique in the Solar System.
But scrutability’s in the eye of the beholder. Someone once compared the situation of a poet to that of a person standing in an open field, waiting to get struck by lightening. If he’s lucky, he’ll get hit more than once in a lifetime. Tufts’s role in cracking Europa’s arcuate cycloids code was unambiguous: he was the guy who got zapped.
A tall, free-ranging individual, intellectually and also physically, Tufts had a kind of angular bony grace as he walked – loped really – along the stone-cut walkways of Abano Terme. It transpired that he had been struck by lightening three times in his life. Before his formal training as a planetary geologist, he had been an amateur spelunker. In 1974, he and a friend stumbled on the recessed entrance to a large, unexplored cave system buried beneath the Arizona desert. They had managed to keep it a secret for an astonishing fourteen years, until it could be protected from damage. Arizona eventually invested 28 million dollars in the cave, installing heavy weatherproof doors and a misting system to keep the dry desert air out, and a month after I met Tufts in Italy, they finally opened it with much fanfare as the Kartchner Caverns State Park. “The whole idea is to develop it so that it’s environmentally preserved,” Tufts said. “I don’t know, it’s a paradox, but…”
Tufts’ second lightening strike had been his 1998 discovery of an immense fault line in the southern hemisphere of Europa. The crack, which was subsequently named Astypalaea Linea, and was revealed by Galileo photographs to be longer than the San Andreas Fault, was important because it gave clear evidence of something separating the Europan crust from the rocky core of the moon – a clear indication of a possible liquid water “decoupling” layer. Still, it wasn’t yet the clincher.
It was the third lightening bolt – his arcuate lines intuition – that we soon fell to talking about. Tufts had been fascinated by those weird ridges even before Galileo reached Jupiter in December of 1995. He recalled printing out multiple copies of the less distinct Voyager pictures of them and handing them out to his non-scientist friends, the idea being to see if they might miraculously intuit the cause. He even took the pictures to a glass-blowing factory in downtown Tucson, and asked if they’d ever seen anything like it. What did they say? I asked. “No!” Tufts laughed, scratching the back of his balding head. “I was just casting about for any kind of analogue, anything that might do it.”
With the Astypalaea fault as his subject, Tufts was working on his doctoral dissertation one night in the summer of 1998 when it occurred to him that one explanation for a slight curvature in his fault-line could be the regular shift, in both direction and amplitude, of Jupiter’s gravity during each of Europa’s revolutions around the planet. With its parent planet weighing in at over 300 times the mass of Earth, immense gravitational stresses inevitably play across Europa’s flexing ice shell. Tufts remembered going into the lab in July to “play with” Gregg Hoppa’s detailed maps of those stress fields, which calculated their evolving orientation and changing force levels. Squinting down at the print-outs while sketching lines in a small notebook with a stub pencil, he felt a growing excitement: when he followed Jupiter’s shifting influence on the Europan surface, one hemisphere of which is always facing the planet, he ended up with looping cracks that propagate in curving, stop-and-go chains – exactly what they really do.
I asked him why the cycloids do that – stop and go. Tufts explained that Europa’s slightly elliptical orbit meant that Jupiter’s gravity increases and decreases with metronomic regularity; as a result, cracks start propagating, but then as Europa recedes from Jupiter, they stop again. By the time the stresses pick up again an orbit later, they’re oriented in a different direction – one closer to the starting direction of the previous link in the chain, in fact. The procedure results in those bizarre linking cusps where the cycloids suddenly make an about-face. Finally and most intriguingly, the whole process couldn’t happen without the existence of a large body of sub-surface water to exert tidal pressure from below – something which Gregg Hoppa had been the first to realize.
The whole idea ultimately has an almost sculptural simplicity, and later I couldn’t help but thinking of Roger Diehl and his VEEGA trajectory. It too, had somehow been waiting for discovery, lost in plain sight among a tangle of alternate trajectories; it too ultimately looked simple, the way a triple pirouette by an ice dancer might look simple, though it had presented itself as a solution only after much obsessive work; and like Tufts’s cycloids, it too curved gracefully through space and time, its arcs and reversals subject to gravity’s uncompromising but explicable cable work. And one revelation hinged irrevocably on the other; Tufts’s Europa insight would’ve been impossible without Galileo data, and Galileo wouldn’t have gotten near the moon without Diehl’s VEEGA trajectory.
Tufts had tossed a two-decade career as a community organizer to focus on Europa research, and it turns out he had one overriding motivation beyond sheer scientific curiosity. “Because I was interested in politics, I thought a lot about what kinds of things would best promote world peace,” he told me. “One of those, it always seemed to me, would be to find life somewhere else. It would give us a vastly new perspective on existence.” He laughed. “I mean, on the one hand, it might take us down a peg, which always could be useful. And the other thing it might teach us is that life is what the Universe does. What is the Universe? It might be a great mechanism for creating consciousness.” And then he excused himself: he had a date with a working group that was proposing instruments for what was to have been Galileo’s successor, a Europa Orbiter. It was supposed to have been launched this year, but the mission was cancelled in 2002 for budgetary reasons.
In late April of that year an obituary appeared in The New York Times. It gave an accurate account of two of the three lightening strikes that had graced Randy Tufts’s life in the 53 years before a rare bone marrow disorder suddenly felled him: the Arizona cave discovery and that of Europa’s 600-mile long Astypalaea Linea fault. It didn’t, however, say anything about the feat of deduction that had unraveled Europa’s cycloidal ridges conundrum and become the first great confirmation of a sub-surface liquid water ocean there. Maybe this was because Gregg Hoppa was the lead author of that paper, or maybe it was just because space constraints precluded trying to explain the thing in an obituary. How, after all, to put this story of pure logic – the logic of natural forces in cyclical motion, but also the force of the natural workings of the human brain, that mysterious instrument capable of using robot visions to deduce the origins of encrypted inscriptions on the face of a moon that’s six million miles away – into a newsprint death notice? It may have been the most wonderful revelation to have happened to this science-minded poet of the field, and it may yet prove to be a key finding on the way towards the discovery of extraterrestrial life. But three strikes and you’re out.
*The obit, however, ended on a prescient note. Just as Tufts protected his cave, his wife Ericha Scott is paraphrased as saying, so he wanted to establish safeguards to protect whatever life might exist on Europa from damage by spacecraft. And that’s the leading rationale behind Galileo’s death dive. Unlike NASA’s Mars landers, which are sterilized before launch, Galileo may still harbor some of the microorganisms which inevitably hitch a ride on our space robots. If left in its orbit around Jupiter after running out of propellant, there’s a chance that it would eventually crash into Europa, potentially seeding the moon with aliens from Earth. (The spacecraft also carries potentially dangerous plutonium pellets in its two power generators.)
In late July I called Arthur C. Clarke at his home in Sri Lanka and asked him to comment on Galileo’s death sentence. I was interested in his view of the planetary protection reasons behind it. Clarke has had his periods of Europa fascination; in fact he put a mysterious form of intelligence in the Europan ocean in his sequels to 2001: A Space Odyssey. But instead of steering me towards 2010: Odyssey Two he mentioned an old short story of his, Before Eden, which was published in 1956. “It’s all about the danger that we might contaminate new worlds,” Clarke said. Later I found the story, which describes a scouting expedition to Galileo’s first fly-by destination, Venus. The expedition left behind that archetypical human artifact, a bag of waste. The waste ended up contaminating a strange Venusian life form they’d discovered there, ending its evolution. I concluded that Clarke probably endorsed NASA’s plan to destroy Galileo.
In January of 1997, shortly after Galileo had first eked Earthwards its pictures of piecemeal ice floes in the Europan ocean, Galileo project director Bill O’Neil and mission science director Torrence Johnson had an audience at the Vatican with the Pope. It was a scene the Roman Catholic Church’s most famous heretic no doubt would’ve appreciated: the scientists running the mission named after him meeting with the very pontiff who had finally acknowledged that the shrewd astronomer might’ve had a point after all. Presented with robot Galileo’s photographs of Jupiter’s excellent strange satellites, multilingual John Paul III studied the branching, forking, curving cracks that fissure Europa’s silvery surface and pondered for a minute. Then he looked up. “Wow,” he said.
Three years after that Vatican audience, and three hundred and sixty after the first Galileo was dragged from Florence to a nearby Inquisition courtroom, a mouthful of a committee – the National Academy of Sciences’ Space Studies Board’s Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration, or COMPLEX – delivered itself of a verdict on his successor. Asked by NASA to study the various options for ending the Galileo mission, it recommended disposal of the craft either through a controlled trajectory into Jupiter or into its presumably sterile volcanic moon Io. They ruled out another option, that of slinging the probe out of Jupiter orbit, because of “the very small, but nonzero, chance of eventual impact with Earth.” Galileo would not be given the slightest chance to come home.
When I asked Leslie Deutsch what his reaction had been when he’d heard of the decision, he said he was initially angry, though he understood the rationale behind it.Over the years, he admitted, he had become emotionally attached to the distant robot emissary, adding that it was only the second time that NASA had deliberately killed a functioning spacecraft. When I asked Bill O’Neil the same question, Galileo’s long-serving project manager – and one of the key architects of the effort to save the mission – mulled it over for a few days, then sent me an e-mail. Galileo’s end end would bring a personal sense of satisfaction at what had been achieved, he wrote. Still, he found it ironic “Galileo Galilei only got house arrest by his sponsor the Roman Catholic Church for discovering things they didn’t want to be true, whereas our Project Galileo gets a death sentence from NASA for its greatest discovery – the prospect of life on Europa.”
THE ATLANTIC, July 1. 2002
A SPACE IN TIME
By MICHAEL BENSON
-
Click for the universe … Your home computer, thanks to the windows that NASA has poked in space, is the site of the greatest show on earth. A deskbound cosmic pilgrim beckons us to an available sublimity
In the evenings, when my particular piece of Earth has turned away from the Sun, and is exposed instead to the rest of the cosmos, I sit in front of a keyboard, log on, and seek out the windows that look down at the planets and out at the stars. It’s a markedly different experience from looking at hard copy prints. What I see is closer to the source. In fact, it’s indistinguishable from the source. These are images that have never registered on a negative. Like the Internet itself, they are products of a digitized era. Over the past few years I’ve been monitoring the long rectangular strips of Martian surface being beamed across the void, in a steady stream of zeroes and ones, from the umbrella-shaped high-gain antennas of the Mars Global Surveyor and Mars Odyssey spacecraft. These pictures are so fresh that their immediacy practically crackles. Call it “chrono-clarity.” That bluish wispy cloud, for example, hovering over the Hecates Tholus volcano, which rears above the pockmarked surface of the Elysium Volcanic Region in the Martian eastern hemisphere—it has barely had time to disperse before I, or anyone with Internet access, can see it in all its spooky beauty. The volcano emerges from the pink Martian desert, which looks organic and impressionable—like human skin, or the surface of a clay pot before firing. The tenuous cloud floats near the volcano’s mouth, as if in prelude to an eruption. It’s a picture composed of millions of dots and dashes of data, produced by a transmission technique just a few steps removed from Morse code; but it reveals a landscape the likes of which Samuel Morse, let alone the ranks of Earth-based astronomers who have surveyed the planets since well before Babylonian times, could scarcely have envisioned.
In case there was any doubt, many of those good old science-fiction predictions from the 1950s and the 1960s are coming true. “NEW SQUAD OF ROBOTS READY TO ASSAULT MARS” read a 1998 headline in the online Houston Chronicle, stirring submerged memories of my adolescent readings of Isaac Asimov’s I, Robot stories. Asimov’s sentient robots were frequently confused. Something always seemed to be going wrong with them, and the mayhem that followed could inevitably be traced back to a programming error by their human handlers—a situation not unfamiliar to those running NASA’s Mars program, currently on a vigorous rebound after being temporarily grounded in the late 90’s after a catastrophic pair of failures. (The Mars Climate Orbiter was lost owing to the stark failure by one group of engineers to translate another group’s figures into metric units of measurement, and the Mars Polar Lander because for some unfathomable reason its landing gear hadn’t been adequately tested.) Two new Mars landers, each with a semi-autonomous rover attached, should touch down there by late 2003 – raising the prospect that six automated vehicles of one kind or another will soon be examining that desert landscape simultaneously from various angles.
For all their formidable prescience, Asimov and his contemporaries Arthur C. Clarke and Robert Heinlein didn’t quite conjure up that still-startling compound of populist forum, deep archive, and global amphitheater called the Internet. I picture a packed arena of Romans, teeming and kaleidoscopic, at the height of the empire. They’re savoring the gods’-eye view, watching the Red Planet turn. Would they have seen it as territory to conquer? Would they have sent in the legions? Mars, after all, was named after the Roman god of war, the father of Romulus and Remus. And what about our age—which way, in the end, will we go? “Earth is the cradle of the mind,” said the pioneering Russian space-flight theorist Konstantin Tsiolkovsky. “But we cannot live in a cradle forever.”
A low hum resounds from the tiny fan recessed in my computer—a propeller venting warmth from the machinery of virtual travel. With rusty Martian sand dunes still undulating across the screen, I notice that outside, the Moon is rising over subzero Central Europe. The city below it is quiet, subdued under snow. Beyond brick smokestacks a familiar cool light defines the icy sphere. A ghostly mass of battered rock, Earth’s satellite is an archetypal solar-system object, with surface features echoing those of many of the planets and moons arrayed in far-flung archipelagos around the Sun. But it’s much more than that—at least in the human context. The longer one considers it, the more its tidal influence grows. Without that luminescent lure would there even have been a pull to leave this planet?
Deciding to take a closer look, I accelerate away from Mars and shoot thirty years into the past —descending rapidly through the strata of the Apollo archives. I quickly find an excellent picture of a three-quarters moon, taken by a large-format mapping camera during one of the later manned missions, in the early 1970s. Almost the entire ravaged face is visible, with tactile gradations of surface texture readily apparent—craters edging gradually toward the terminator, that endlessly migratory line between day and night, and into darkness. There’s a three-dimensional, convex quality to the image. But it looks somehow odd. I realize that I’m looking down at a lunar surface divided between the side always oriented toward Earth—the face with a face, so to speak—and the far side. Two of the familiar eastern mares, or seas, are situated here on the left side of the picture—in the hemisphere visible from Earth. On the right, facing deep space, well east of the immense circular basin of Mare Crisium, the battered back of the Moon is submerged in elongated shadows.
Suddenly, with a kind of vertigo, I sense the home planet, way off past the left border of the picture—and even myself, somewhere down there, at the age of ten, maybe looking up at the exact moment the shutter fell on Apollo. I’m frozen in that same clockwork flux generated by the spheres as they move inexorably through space. Looking out the window again (here, now, a traveler on a winter’s night), I realize that the Moon is in exactly the same phase.
Between self, screen, and window, a kind of temporal triangulation. And what am I doing now, if not the same thing as then? Looking up, “just” in time.
***
When I return to Earth, it’s always to Ljubljana. As far as most of my New York friends are concerned, I already live in outer space. Slovenia has never exactly been at the center of things. It’s not even at the center of that nebulous interzone called Central Europe. I came to this tiny nation of two million alpine Slavs shortly after its dangerous secession from Yugoslavia, in the summer of 1991. Ten days of intermittent, partisan-style war against the federal army had devolved into an uneasy cease-fire, periodically shattered by the rolling kettle-drum crash of MiGs breaking the sound barrier overhead. But the army soon withdrew, rumbling southeast toward Croatia and Bosnia, with a kind of murderous, humiliated gleam in its eye. It left behind an independent—and remarkably unscathed—new country.I moved to this fringe of the disastrous Balkans to make a film. When I finally finished, four years later, I remained based in Ljubljana – a miniaturized, Hapsburg-perfect pocket capital – while I took the resulting movie, called Predictions of Fire, to festivals all over the world. Meanwhile, I got involved in various projects and lives. Then I got married—and eventually had a son. The time never seemed right to move back to New York. Without quite realizing it, I had become an expatriate. Not for the first time.
But it didn’t take me long to discover that it was possible to go even further out. In the spring of 1995, on the early color monitor of a used IBM clone, the World Wide Web blinked to life on my desktop for the first time. I quickly proceeded past the novelty of being able to read The New York Times while Manhattan slept, and discovered a way of looking through the “windows” of crewless spacecraft—vessels that have seen Earth dwindle to the size of a pearl, and then a pixel, as they voyaged far beyond any place ever directly observed by human beings. Very far beyond.
It takes only the briefest of Net-mediated shunts, in other words, to vault from the slate-gray drainpipes and cracked flagstones of Vrhovceva Street No. 4 and through the open window of escape velocity—25,000 miles per hour. The procedure is silent, with none of the countdown, dazzle, and roar we associate with rocket propulsion. But it works flawlessly nonetheless. And once you’ve escaped Earth’s gravity, the universe unfolds, revealing vistas across space and time so multi-faceted, so replete with the unlikely, the mysterious, and the awe-inspiring, that it’s astonishing that the whole procedure can be channeled through the good offices of a local phone call.
Suddenly, on the screen as in reality, I saw the whole story—the human and even the post-human story—delineated against a vast, starry black backdrop. This has nothing to do with the astronauts, inexplicably confined to low Earth orbit for three decades. A continual remote-controlled extension of boundaries is under way. Intricate space probes—encased in scarabaeoid shells, festooned with scopes and scanners, and driven by solar-powered cells and radio-isotope thermo-electric generators—are redefining the limits of human knowledge. Deployed at the perimeter, they’re casting wide-eyed glances and making sophisticated measurements, well past any terra incognita where sea monsters once seethed through oceans pouring off the rim of a flat planet.
Pretty soon I was hooked. I began compulsively monitoring the progress of our space-faring machines.
***
That Moon, rising implacably over Ljubljana, has long since ceded center stage. It defined the first act, but now it’s a cameo, backlit by the immense universe beyond. It played its role well, though, using its small gravitational field to full advantage, gradually reeling the species off Earth to have a look around. At the beginning of the fifth decade of space travel the various tools for that investigation have increased their power in exponential jumps. What they’re looking at is astonishing in its depth and diversity.NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which is in charge of all American unmanned missions, is keeping tabs on a record number of space probes these days. They include the joint NASA-European Space Agency SOHO solar observatory, which has been producing amazing stop-motion films of quakes and tornadoes on the Sun for more than half a decade now, and the giant two-story spacecraft Cassini, which has been threading a circuitous course toward Saturn ever since its launch, in October of 1997. Cassini swung past Venus twice, picking up gravity-assisted momentum each time, and then boomeranged around Earth again on its seven-year flight to the ringed planet. On January 1 of 2001 the probe sent home one of the most beautiful color photographs ever taken of Jupiter and its companion moon Io. A behemoth compared with most of the other new probes, Cassini was designed well before the advent of the “faster, better, cheaper” doctrine that the former NASA administrator Daniel S. Goldin introduced, with some fanfare, in the early 1990s. This low-budget management philosophy requires that spacecraft cost less than $150 million and go from the drawing board to the launch pad in thirty-six months or less.
NASA’s Discovery-class missions were run according to this doctrine, and the program has racked up some real successes. They include the Mars Odyssey mission, launched in 2001 (and named after Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke’s film 2001: A Space Odyssey), and the Global Surveyor, which has completed a photographic map of Mars to rival the best we have of Earth. It’s earliest major success was the Pathfinder, which created something of a media sensation back in 1997. Pathfinder bounced down on the Martian surface using a set of inflated air bags, the first time such a landing method had been attempted. It then opened its multiple petals like a mechanized flower and proceeded to roll out a telegenic, insectoid little rover named Sojourner—without a doubt the most charismatic unmanned vehicle in NASA history. NASA’s new Mars rovers are almost twice as big as Sojourner, and will be able to roam over a far larger territory.
In early 2000, in an event largely ignored by the mainstream media, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory eased a Discovery probe called NEAR (for Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous) into orbit around a twenty-one-mile-long peanut-shaped, methodically tumbling rock called Eros. NEAR was the first spacecraft ever to orbit an asteroid—no inconsiderable feat of celestial navigation, given that Eros has a gravity field so weak that an astronaut on its surface could reach escape velocity by simply jumping off. A year later project scientists maneuvered the probe to within a few hundred yards of its subject and then directed it to touch down gently. NEAR thus became the first spacecraft to land on an asteroid.
NEAR hasn’t performed flawlessly. Not unlike an adolescent confronting the object of his or her erotic fascination for the first time, the spacecraft suddenly flipped out during its initial approach to Eros, in December of 1998. Cut off from communication with Earth, acting on its own, the probe’s computer managed to re-orient the spinning craft. But by the time the JPL flight engineers had figured out what went wrong, they were forced to send their charge all the way around the Sun again—a year-long trajectory—for another try.
They wouldn’t have been able to do so if NEAR hadn’t straightened up and flown right all by itself. There’s something fascinating about the increasing autonomy of these robots with which we’re populating the heavens. In the late 90’s, an e-mail came to me from the JPL—something again automatic, sent through that other universe, the one made of innumerable routers and chips. It announced the launch of the first unmanned spacecraft capable of making many of its own decisions regarding its orientation vis-à-vis Earth. The phrasing itself was intriguing—even if we were not yet talking about political orientation. If I didn’t know better, I might have begun to suspect that a kind of baton-passing was taking place, far beyond the atmosphere. From flesh-and-blood us to nuts-and-bolts them. Science fiction?
Sifting through a self-congratulatory final press release archived at the Mars Pathfinder site, I was suddenly, unexpectedly, moved. Contact with the lander was lost, it said, in early October of 1997. That was after nearly three months of continuous operation—much longer than expected. The loss of communication was attributed to the failure of the lander’s battery, which in turn cut power to the heater. “After that,” the text read, “the lander would begin getting colder at night and go through much deeper day-night thermal cycles. Eventually, the cold or the cycling would probably render the lander inoperable.”
But little Sojourner is almost entirely solar-powered. It was just as animated as ever when all contact with Earth was lost. I came across the following sentence: “The health and status of the rover is … unknown, but … it is probably circling the vicinity of the lander, attempting to communicate with it.”
The poignancy of it! The pathos! Powered forever by the inexhaustible Sun, impervious to the cold, Sojourner may to this day be wearing grooves in that ocherous desert floor. And we’ve forgotten our cybernetic creation, literally leaving it to its own devices. Having chipped, hammered, glued, and then welded and screwed together the matter we’re surrounded with, we’ve finally endowed it with eyes, ears, and a capacity for self-direction—something like early life itself. We’ve propelled it at extreme velocities to distances that redefine how far human artifacts can go. And we’ve left it to circle, or even to beeline out of the Solar System—still seeking orders, still trying to communicate with us.
***
A few years ago I happened to be scrolling along the bone-dry branchings of a newly discovered Martian riverbed when a small headline started winking on and off like an insistent neon sign, advertising a live feed of the Mars Polar Lander launch. I steered my arrow over to the Real Player icon next to it and clicked. A simulated TV set unfolded itself, voilà, in the browser window. The thing was approximately the size of a matchbox. From the virtuality of television to the next stage: the TV itself becomes virtual. This miniature screen-within-a-screen filled with what appeared to be a close-up of Earth’s surface: not grass and soil, or the heaving Pacific, but staggered gray concrete and an elaborate web of girders, ramps, and drifting smoke. Evidently the camera was mounted on the lower stage of a rocket. I was looking directly down at Cape Canaveral launch pad 17B.A tinny countdown issued forth from my computer’s speakers, and I watched the grainy yet kinetic, comically Lilliputian live launch of that ill-fated robotic mission. Tongues of bright-orange flame flared out, filling the bottom of my stamp-flat TV. The ground rushed away, rapidly becoming coastline and then cloudscape. I clicked on the magnifying-glass icon to enlarge the toy picture, which expanded to fill half the screen. The image now verged on abstraction, a scramble of “compression protocols” trying frantically to keep up with the fast-paced reality of a rocket blasting through the sound barrier and out of the atmosphere just like that. The arc of Earth’s limb appeared—immediately recognizable, as if coded in ancestral memory. Sixty-six seconds after liftoff four pencil-shaped solid-fuel boosters separated from the Delta II rocket and fell gracefully away, trailing streamers of smoke as they spiraled back toward Florida. The curved horizon was defined by the inky blackness of space.
Ironically, this image of our home planet had a far lower resolution than do the crisp pictures Surveyor and Mars Odyssey have been wiring back from Mars. That’s because time had been added to space; it was, at least nominally, a motion picture, and a live one at that. Fascinated by this example of technique chasing technology, of software trailing hardware, I watched our pixelated planet, a spinning blue globe forced continually to reassemble itself as blocks of Atlantic cloud moved lumpily forward. Data coursed through the modem with a barely discernible thrumming sound, something like the brrrrrr of a hummingbird’s wings. Four and a half minutes into the flight the horizon suddenly rose again, now in a free-wheeling spin. The lower stage of the rocket—the one with the camera—had fallen away. Then there was nothing but micro-miniaturized TV static: “snow” twice removed. The probe would soon reach escape velocity. The feed was over. We human beings had been left far behind. Not for the first time.
***
Stubbornly refusing re-entry to Earth, I raced ahead of the new probe to Mars orbit again, where I looked down at the grandest canyon in the Solar System—a jagged 2,500-mile-long gash that could easily span most of the continental United States. This is Valles Marineris, named after its discoverer, the 1971 Mariner 9 probe. In the past five years Surveyor has zoomed up close on the eroded rim of this immense canyon, which at points is more than six miles deep. The resolution of these pictures is so good that scientists could easily spot, say, a small concession stand set up at the rim of Noctis Labyrinthus, the complex series of connected rift valleys defining the canyon’s western periphery. Coke? Fries? Oxygen? Huge ancient river channels begin from Valles Marineris and run north. Many of them lead to the boulder-strewn floodplains of Chryse Basin—the landing site of both Viking 1, which left an orbiter behind and set down in 1976, and Pathfinder, which bounced to a halt, beach-ball style, some twenty years later.I scrutinized the image produced as Surveyor moved across the canyon’s northern edge. A small impact crater was clearly visible near the rim, as perfect as a drop of rainwater captured a split second after hitting a lake. Although this area otherwise looks as dry as dust, in April and May of 2000 startling images of the Gorgonum Chaos region in the Martian southern hemisphere revealed what appeared to be recently formed gullies snaking through twisted terrain. Indistinguishable from similar formations on Earth, of the kind that form always and only above groundwater, they seem to indicate an aquifer only a few hundred yards beneath the surface.
And this, of course, is not something one scribbles furtively at the end of a paragraph, hoping nobody will notice. After hundreds of years of fruitless observation from Earth, followed by three decades of robot flybys, orbiters, and three successful remote landings on the surface, it took the eagle-eyed, low-budget Global Surveyor to finally divine water on Mars. Eureka!
Gazing down at the luminous buttes and mesas of Valles Marineris, an almost familiar landscape creepy in its emptiness of even the faintest flicker of life, I remembered driving in the summer of 1996 from Arizona’s Meteor Crater—the best-preserved impact crater on Earth—to the edge of the Grand Canyon: a place where the Europeans settling the New World came face to face for the first time with a geological past so deep that it called biblical chronology into question. One reason the Grand Canyon became so symbolically important to the United States was that it served as a geologically eloquent stand-in for the young country’s missing cultural history. (Native Americans, of course, didn’t figure.) I wonder if it’s a coincidence that this nation—now able to boast the longest continuously operational form of government on Earth—is centuries later expending the effort and resources to explore new, even more spectacular places where nature bears no trace of human history.
Nature, they say, abhors a vacuum. But the reference is really to humanity, always rushing in with its gizmos and interpretations. Maybe the serrated walls of that Martian canyon exist as an antipode to the ones in Arizona. Maybe that chasm at the center of American iconography is mirrored from above by Valles Marineris—a place signifying not a country’s past but its future. Not the last frontier but the next one.
***
Probably the fact that I’ve moved around the globe for much of a lifetime has encouraged my tendency to place things in a cosmic perspective. Reportedly, the handful of astronauts who bounced across the Moon thirty years ago could sense, even at ground level, that they were on a sphere. The horizon looked too close. It also sloped downward, subtly but visibly, in a strange and airless clarity. Being raised in a Foreign Service family, as I was, can produce a similar effect on this planet. Give yourself a multiplicity of camera angles, in enough time zones, and eventually the sky becomes the sole common denominator.A chain of cities unreels in my memory like a roll of archival film. I rewind to Ankara, Turkey, in the mid-seventies: An acrid pall shrouds the minarets. The city has some of the worst air pollution on Earth. Each room of our large house has an electrostatic air-cleaner; an army of plastic wood-grained boxes tries mightily to zap particulates before they reach our soft American lungs. But this brown haze is winter coal smoke. In the spring the stars blink and wheel high over the Balgat hills, pristine and clear in the thin, dry Anatolian air. For my twelfth birthday I am given a telescope. Out on the darkened lawn I point this tube—a device practically indistinguishable from the one Galileo Galilei built in the winter of 1609—up at the glinting night sky. Like the heretic Pisan, I rapidly discover a number of important things: The Moon is a cratered, mountainous body. The Milky Way is composed of innumerable individual stars. Jupiter, faintly striped, is attended by four stars—spread out in a thin line parallel to its bulging equator.
Several nights later I observe Jupiter again. Those “stars” have changed their positions, relative to the planet and to one another. They’re the Galilean moons.
Nothing, however, prepares me for the sheer aesthetic pleasure of Saturn. How, in all creation, could such an object have come about? Clearly visible in their weightless tilt, as symmetrical as something made by the most precise of machine tools from the cleanest of mathematical models on the largest lathe in the galaxy, the multiple rings encircling this improbable object redefine what nature is capable of. Saturn is as beautiful as anything I have ever seen on Earth. It is a presentation, live and uncut, of cosmic perfection.
I pull eye from eyepiece and look down at the telescope’s white barrel in amazement. Technology may produce a haze to choke cities. It may leak crude into the oceans. But it has also unveiled a universe made of glittering jewels.
***
Hurtling effortlessly along the cyberspaceways more than two decades later, I monitor blinking readouts and order micro-circuitry and interlinked telecommunications devices to navigate among the planets and stars. Never before have such solitary, self-directed voyages into deep space been possible. Even the lunar explorers, those who actually broke free of Earth and traveled to another world, were slaves to their schedules and their uncompromising hierarchies of command. Opportunities to simply gaze out the window, to allow the experience to register in the soul, were few and far between. Many, when they returned, retained only sketchy, disembodied memories of what they had experienced. My journeys may not be actual, but they do give me plenty of time to mull over what I’ve seen through the portholes.In May of 2001 I discovered that my personal space-exploration method had been validated by none other than the National Research Council, which recommended that an initial $60 million be allocated to create a “national virtual observatory.” With the quantity of data that pours down from the sky growing ever more unmanageable, it seems that the old-style method of observation (in which astronomers, or kids on the lawn, point telescopes where they want to look) is gradually being replaced by something called data mining (in which researchers examine many layers of pre-recorded observations, frequently for the first time). With the Hubble Space Telescope alone downlinking more than two billion bytes a day, and with a higher-capacity next-generation space telescope being assembled in the wings, archives with the capacity to house hundreds of terabytes are necessary. When Cassini finally reaches Saturn, in late 2004, its big high-gain antenna will start firehosing data down from the outer Solar System at such a rate that the resulting flood will keep planetary scientists busy for generations. Despite unprecedented number-crunching capabilities, they’ll only be seining at the shores of the deep data ocean.
This outside-in, archival universe may be demanding all-new methodologies from the scientific classes, but it is also providing squinty-eyed tourists like me with more and more space to surf. With the Moon outside my frosted Ljubljana window now sliding well past its apex and descending toward the jagged Alps, I retrace the comet’s tail of images produced by our distant robot explorers. The sheer number of these pictures, combined with the very high traveling speed of the cameras’ platforms, creates a cinematic effect. This isn’t a cathedral fresco cycle, arranged across a vaulted ceiling to make a composite narrative of heaven. It’s a flipbook—film stills strung out in sequence along intricate trajectories, culled from some of the most hyperkinetic dolly shots ever devised.
In the past five years the almost frighteningly beautiful trove of Jupiter images sent to Earth by the hit-and-run Voyager probes of the late seventies has been dwarfed by reams of downloads from Galileo—a cybernetic descendant of its namesake that is currently orbiting within the complex Jovian system. Europa, one of the four moons discovered by Galileo in 1610, is particularly stunning. Reminiscent of the sentient ocean planet in the Russian director Andrei Tarkovsky‘s film Solaris (but frozen into bizarre, intricate patterns of fault lines, and “chaos terrain”), this haunting sphere of frosted off-white is surfaced entirely by branching, splintering, glittering ice. Although cue-ball smooth when viewed from afar, up close it presents a fascinating array of elliptical fissures and ridges—an Abstract Expressionist surface that practically demands decipherment. In 1999 the late Randy Tufts, Gregory V. Hoppa, and a team of planetary scientists from the University of Arizona went a long way toward cracking the code, positing that the most mysterious fault lines identifiable on Europa—the wave-form-like “arcuate” fractures spiraling eerily across the crystalline landscapes near its poles—are almost certainly a result of Jupiter’s shifting tidal pull on subsurface water.
Only comparatively recently, in fact, have Europa’s ramifications begun to register within the planetary-sciences community. The result is a cautious, gathering excitement: the moon has become one of the leading candidates as a host for extraterrestrial life. Some estimates hold that Europa contains five, even ten times as much water as Earth. Richard Terrile, of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, put it this way to the press: “How often is an ocean discovered? The last one was the Pacific, by Balboa, and that was five hundred years ago.”
As I continue hoarding pictures, I reflect on the freakish diversity of the Solar System. To take only one example: Europa floats directly outside the orbit of a sister moon named Io, which is the most volcanic object in known space. This extraordinary fire-and-ice pair couldn’t be more different. Io is orange, green, purple, and irreducibly strange. Squeezed by the huge hand of Jupiter’s gravity, it erupts with dozens of hyperactive volcanoes that continuously spew plumes hundreds of miles into space. The volcanoes’ magma, which at its source can be far hotter than any on Earth, rains back down on a constantly changing outer crust. In an ongoing inside-out heave, Io is continually replacing its exterior with its interior.
Drifting now past Saturn’s shimmering rings, I see that they abound in spokelike features and strange kinks—the former perhaps caused by electrostatic charges in the dusty, weightless debris, the latter by the gravitational pull of two small “shepherd” moons. Entire schools of theory have arisen to try to explain these complex, ever-shifting phenomena. Following the image trail to the farthest periphery of the Solar System, to Uranus and Neptune, the most-distant planets ever visited by a space probe, I catalogue bizarre sights along the way. There’s Miranda, the smallest of Uranus’s major moons. This 290-miles-in-diameter object, named after Prospero’s daughter in The Tempest, has huge faults twelve miles deep. In one provisional theory scientists speculate that it may have been repeatedly shattered by unknown forces, and then just as inexplicably reassembled, throughout its obscure history. Bleakly lit by the distant sun, floating in the ether, it may as well be the place fervently requested by tempest-tossed Gonzalo: “Would I give a thousand furlongs of sea, for an acre of barren ground.”
Arriving finally at deep-blue Neptune, the end of the line, I look down at the sullen black storm that was its largest defining feature when Voyager 2 whipped past the planet in 1989. Called the Great Dark Spot, it’s a whirling bruise the size of Earth, and it whistles with the strongest winds yet measured on any planet. South of it, out of sync, an irregularly shaped white cloud—endearingly named Scooter by Voyager scientists—scuds frenetically along the planet’s equator at 1,200 miles per hour.
As I pass through the chill vacuum beyond the Earth-surveyed Solar System, I cast a glance back at crescent Neptune and see that it reminds me of a work of art—something created by a master toward the end of a long career. There’s a wintry virtuosity at play, combined with a palpable absence of any need to show off. Gone are the flashy excesses of Jupiter and Saturn. Neptune’s rings are tenuous, almost invisible. Its haunting, cantaloupe-skinned moon Triton, one of the coldest places in known nature, is dark and inscrutable. Yet in spite of its deep-frozen state, activity is noticeable even here: plumes of carbon as black as squid ink emerge from cracks in its surface. Wafting upward, they’re whipped suddenly into horizontal lines by some unseen hand. Below this startling scene, floating just above a blue vastness more unfathomable than any sea, a veil of wispy silver clouds is draped across Neptune’s northern hemisphere.
***
Insomniac nights. I move on to interstellar and intergalactic space—to places capable of making even the most exotic views of the planets and moons seem . . . local. These images are sent down by another kind of space probe, the orbiting Hubble Space Telescope. Ever since its initial embarrassing myopia was cured by five intricately choreographed space walks during a shuttle mission in 1993, the Hubble has been transmitting an electrifying series of observations—images capable of shocking even the most space-weary astronomer (or visual artist, or theologian, for that matter) into an awed silence.
In 2002 astronomers fortunate enough to have a time-share arrangement on the Hubble observed what is surely one of the most apocalyptic sight ever viewed by human beings: two galaxies that have collided. A few weeks later, on my screen, I saw the “Tadpole Galaxy,” so named because of the luminous tail of disrupted stellar matter extending out from its distorted center. Almost hidden behind the tormented spiral of this vast wheel of stars, a compact blue hit-and-run galaxy attempts its getaway. It’s a scene of almost unimaginable, orgiastic violence—yet quite serenely beautiful at the same time. This is a cataclysm so immense and distant that the stark fact of our ability to capture it, let alone understand it, seems capable of redefining our picture of ourselves. Where do we stand in relation to this stellar train wreck? It isn’t some dream beyond death. In fact, it pre-dates our birth as a species. And yet we miraculously came along to produce this perfect simulacrum, this freeze-frame of smashing stars, and to bind it in a computer hard drive.
The stardust we’re made of was produced by vast explosions not unlike these. It was only much later that the double helix—that genetic concatenation of biochemical triggers, derricks, and hoists—arrived to work the material. Sometimes I wonder what it says about our civilization that most people haven’t noticed, or taken the trouble to really look at, the amazing cornucopia our sensors have been sending down from the heavens. Could the same secular era that produced these visionary machines be responsible for muting some of the awe that should presumably greet what they reveal? In investing them with a measure of soul and curiosity, have we lost an equivalent amount in ourselves? Maybe we just need more time. Or maybe, to put it another way, we need more space.
***
Honking out one of his trademark long lines, Allen Ginsberg put it well: the hipsters jittering through “Howl” burn for “the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night.” Less hip, but just as motivated, Hubble’s keepers once tried an interesting experiment. From December 18 to 28, 1995, they focused on a place they assumed would have the least activity in it. Like a team of biologists bored with the ecstatic plenitude of life, like researchers dropping a blob of distilled water on a glass slide to see, finally, something without anything, they selected an area well above the cluttered plane of our galaxy and set the Hubble for the deepest focus possible. What they probed was an apparently empty quadrant in the vicinity of the Big Dipper’s handle. The sampled segment—the deepest image ever taken of the heavens—covered, according to the official press release, “a speck of the sky only about the width of a dime located 75 feet away.”The faint beams of light from this tiny piece of space were painstakingly collected in 342 exposures over ten consecutive days. Cleaned up, processed, and digitally fused, these serial exposures finally came together to paint a picture not of an emptiness populated with a few feeble glowworm photons but of a spectral woven carpet of galaxies seemingly reaching on and out forever, deep into space and time. About 1,500 venerable pinwheels and other galactic forms careen through the Hubble’s cosmic “core sample,” so faint they’re undetectable by even the largest ground-based telescopes. Some of them at magnitude 30 are still four billion times fainter than that which can be seen by the unaided human eye. Called the Hubble Deep Field, the image gives vertiginous new meaning to the term “recorded history.”
Selecting the highest-resolution file of this picture I can find, a sixty-seven-megabyte giant archived somewhere in England, I hit “load” and walk away from the apartment for four hours. Ljubljana on a winter’s night: kamikaze drivers barrel through a dense, rolling fog. I look up at the sky; there’s nothing there. Back in my apartment a laptop methodically assembles the galaxies.
When I finally return, through scrambled medieval streets and up creaking stairs, a vision from the edge of known reality fills my screen. Scrolling up and across, I try to understand. No, I finally decide, I’m not deceiving myself. This product of science is every bit as profound in its implications as the opening sentences of the Old Testament.
A while ago I sent a draft of this article to a friend in New York, the writer Lawrence Weschler. He fired back a passage from Carl Sagan:
In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, “This is better than we thought! The universe is much bigger than our prophets said—grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed”? Instead they say, “No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.” A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge.
***
In the first known writing, Sumerian cuneiform, God was depicted as a star. Text and image, in other words, were once one. Five thousand years later the Hubble, a product of “pure” secular science, brings us full circle. It does so by looking far beyond any human language, spoken or written. About 10 billion years before the Sumerians the most distant—and therefore the oldest—galaxies visible in the Deep Field were still in the process of forming. They were doing so (in the picture they are still doing so, because the reddish light fired outward during their birth took that long to get here) “perhaps less than one billion years after the universe’s birth in the Big Bang,” according to the Space Telescope Science Institute.
Since that winter seven years ago, when the Deep Field image was assembled, space-telescope astronomers have concluded that no matter what seemingly vacant speck of space they deep-focus their cameras on, they’ll inevitably find such an abundance of ancient, glinting fires. Trolling through these multicolored galaxies (the Deep Field image is so large that at full resolution my screen can only sample a portion of it at a time), I shake my head. Clearly, science is producing iconographic images fraught with a kind of religious intensity. It does so by lengthening the border between what’s visible (and therefore, at least provisionally, interpretable) and the ineffable beyond. This beyond deserves the term simply by definition. And as with any religious icon, or any work of visual art, the galaxies stacked up in the Hubble Deep Field are discernible in the first place because behind them is—darkness. Something undefined. A place—or, rather, an absence of place—that astronomers have named the Dark Zone.
This absolute darkness exists on either side of the Big Bang. It pullulates its inscrutable energies before and after the Word. The ultimate nada, it provides a deep black backing canvas for the Beginning. In the presence of this supreme mystery, science, religion, and art all fuse into an etiological question without an answer. The English title for the first book of the Old Testament derives from Genesis kosmou, Greek for “origin of the cosmos.” But the black backdrop beyond these earliest visible galaxies is a text we’ll never be able to find the meaning of, written in an ink that has spread well beyond the margins of the page.
Suddenly I realize that I’m leaning forward, as if I were riding a motorcycle at a dangerously high rate of speed. My nose is only inches from the screen: if I hit a bump, I could vault right through—ending up in the distant past. Or am I already there, looking even further back? And how do you measure the nothing in nothing? How do you place something without anything in time and space when it’s beyond both? A tension is set up—a vibration, as we almost grasp the ungraspable, and even have the hubris to put a frame around it. The ineffable presence of this absence calls to mind an observation by Novalis: “Philosophy is really homesickness, an urge to be at home everywhere. Where, then, are we going? Always to our home.”
In the end, the Hubble’s keepers found their emptiness in spades—their emptiness distilled. Above our heads the light cast off by all those impossibly distant galaxies continues to stream past. The fall of a goose feather is like a redwood crashing to Earth by comparison.
***
As I log off, disengaging from that infinitely extended yet exquisitely detailed out there, it occurs to me that the sending of commands through cyberspace to unlock the images stored in these deep-space archives is a perfect analogue to the transmission and reception of data to and from our distant probes. The living, updated sites devoted to these cybernetic explorers are the link between inner and outer space, between the complex, growing, ever-changing web at the center of our knowledge banks and its most far-flung filaments. Together this whole elaborate structure begins to constitute something like the entirety of the information sphere. It becomes, as Novalis said, home.With a few flicks of the finger, for example, I can determine that Voyager 1, the most distant artifact ever made by humanity, reset its “command loss timer” the other day. I can tell you how much propellant it has left, and the power levels of its generators. Voyager left the Solar System more than a decade ago. It is nearly eight billion miles away. The spacecraft’s EKG readings are so weak that the signal striking NASA’s global network of deep-space antennas is only 10-16 watts—or one part in 10 quadrillion. A digital watch uses 20 billion times more power. Traveling at the speed of light, a signal from Voyager currently takes more than ten hours to reach Earth.
Later I will edit images, crop them, print them out. Coffee. Morning sunlight bounces off the snow. A Yugo buzzes by below the window like a fly. I see that were they created by individual human beings, some of these pictures of the Solar System and the stars would be considered as much works of art as, for example, Ansel Adams’s celebrated photographs of Yosemite, or Frederic Church’s paintings of Niagara. But these depictions of nature are far wilder. I survey an intricate, storm-racked black-and-white Galileo mosaic—five joined pictures of Jupiter’s immense hydrogen-cloud belts, stacked jaggedly in a kind of composite lightning bolt. It’s a picture worthy of a planet named after the Roman ruler of the universe. It also brings to mind Leonardo’s monochromatic Adoration of the Magi, never completed, which dominates a room in the Uffizi Gallery, in Florence. The three Wise Men gaze in amazement at the impossible child. Seated at the center, a serene anchor to the composition, the Madonna smiles enigmatically. Around them an inexplicable cosmos swirls: concentric whorls leading, finally, to a set of stairs reaching up and out—to the heavens.
In the apocalyptic gloom of Tarkovsky’s last film, The Sacrifice, two characters peer anxiously at a framed reproduction of this same painting. Calling it “sinister,” one of them confesses, “I’ve always been terrified of Leonardo.” Seeking a reproduction of Adoration, I click my CD-ROM encyclopedia open to “Leonardo,” and find this sentence: “His scientific theories, like his artistic innovations, were based on careful observation and precise documentation. He understood, better than anyone of his century or the next, the importance of precise scientific observation.”
Ninety years after Leonardo’s death Galileo turned his telescope to the sky—and our knowledge of the universe exploded. By the end of the seventeenth century the total number of known bodies in the Solar System had more than doubled. Three hundred years later, near the end of its own life, Galileo’s robot namesake continues to thread its way among the moons he discovered. The universe is exploding again.
I burn Galileo’s depiction of Jupiter onto a CD—a procedure necessary because the file is so large—and take it to a place full of shiny new machines busy printing, with the methodical longitudinal whir of high-speed ink jets, big photo-quality images, mostly for advertising. The guy flicking switches there is so intrigued by this raging Jovian stormscape—not to mention my oddball reasons for wanting a poster-size copy of it—that he prints the picture out on a panel the size of a door and refuses to take money. Motoring back on Ljubljana’s perilous ring road, I meditate on the fact that questions of authorship would tend to disqualify a space probe’s pictures from serious consideration as works of art—even though its scientific discoveries are undeniable, and attributed. Yet those same questions are very much present in the rarefied art-world air these days. Even Ansel Adams was Ansel Adams only part of the time. Like most photographers, he shot a lot of pictures and then selected those few that today constitute the work we connect with his name. As for these deep-space images, they aren’t really very different. It’s just that they come from the confluence of an immense collective scientific and engineering effort and the stark, disturbing beauty of the cosmos itself. What’s left is choice—curatorship.
And I would argue that these pictures qualify as art for another reason: their mysterious, Leonardo-esque smile. Who can fathom the mind-blowing idea that, just possibly, some rich, strange form of life may be swimming around under the frozen crust of Europa—a sphere itself in orbit around wrathful Jupiter? And what other way currently exists to leave Earth and look back at that glistening blue-white marble suspended in darkness, a diminishing place, a mote finally winking down to microscopic size and being replaced by a larger system of turning worlds? In this cosmic tracking shot it’s not only space and time that are spanned but also the sum total of our homegrown sciences, philosophies, and arts, revealing, ultimately, a shower of sparks—the universe.
The jagged geometry of supersmooth Europa; the idiosyncratic surfaces of the other orbs floating serenely in space; the pristine interstellar vacuum; the inscrutable emptiness of intergalactic space, that immense, echoing, absolutely featureless void enveloping the spinning galaxies: it all serves as a perfect philosophical mirror image, reflecting back the quandary of the species, the limitations of human knowledge. The frail architecture defined by our distant tools, which places the human race at the center of “what’s known,” is actually our own map of ourselves—a chart that we’ll hand down to successive generations, who may one day see a charming primitivism, or even an intriguing prescience, in our view of all that.
I park the car, tread through snowdrifts, and climb the complaining stairs. Galileo’s rendition of Jupiter hangs above my desk in a beam of winter sunlight so feeble that it might be coming from some more distant star. Is this science, religion, or art? Or some kind of recombinant, millennial all-of-the-above? Maybe Leonardo’s Madonna, poised superbly in front of the eroding topography of our particular sphere, is smiling because she knows the answers to those questions. Finally, though, what she might say is irrelevant. Because that ambiguity continues in the infinite landscapes beyond—up the staircase of an incomplete Adoration.
***
Michael Benson is the director of the award-winning ?lm Predictions of Fire (1995) and is in post-pro-
duction on two other ?lms, More Places Forever and Zero. He is at work on a book, Beyond:The Art of the
Space Probes, which will feature some of the pictures appearing in this issue.