Was the Shuttle Worth the Cost?

As I noted in my last piece, Shuttle mission cost estimates range from $450 million and $1.5 billion per launch.  What did we get for this outlay?  The opinions vary, but here are a few comments summing up the Shuttle program.

John P. Shannon, Manager, Space Shuttle Program Office (from the July 20, 2011, article in Aviation Week, Space Shuttle Boss: Lessons Justified Cost)

"The U.S. gained the most capable, sophisticated spacecraft ever flown, with a safety record better than any other existing launch vehicle."

"...the tangible accomplishments in the program’s 30 years—135 flights, 852 astronauts flown to orbit, 3.5 million lb. of cargo mass delivered and 179 payloads deployed."

"Critics of the shuttle sometimes point back to hyperbole from 40 years ago. There were promises of cheap, routine access to space. However, these promises were made by a NASA that had a total of 25 human orbital spaceflights (four Mercury, 10 Gemini, 11 Apollo). It could be argued that NASA did not have the experience to make those promises at that time. The shuttle, as designed, would never approach those goals, but as the sole American human spaceflight vehicle, it served as a tremendous learning tool. Where we are today in our understanding of how to live, work and operate in the space environment is far beyond where we were after Apollo and Skylab."

Lawrence Krauss,  professor and director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University (from the July 22, 2011, editorial in the Wall Street Journal, The Shuttle Was a Dud But Space Is Still Our Destiny)

"Yes, there have been highlights, and such things as the Hubble Space Telescope launch and repair missions were not only exciting, but useful. However, the real question is whether they were necessary to achieve the science goals. The initial repair mission was required because of poor engineering on the ground, which may be the fault of the decision to deploy the telescope from the space shuttle."

"Certainly, the shuttle program can't be justified on the grounds that it helped us build the International Space Station. The station is a largely useless international make-work project that was criticized by every major science organization in this country. All that can be said for its scientific justification is that it now houses a $2 billion particle-physics experiment that managed to avoid serious scientific peer review early on; otherwise it certainly would not have been recommended for funding."

What Now? - Shuttles and Observatories

With the final Shuttle flight underway, the America space program is now reliant on the Russians for trips to the International Space Station (ISS) before it can become reliant on the private sector that has yet to prove its mettle.  Yesterday President Barack Obama called the crews of Atlantis and the International Space Station and discussed the future of the space program, noting that the U.S. space program is proud to partner with the Russians and other nations.  Of course, we are completely dependent on such partnerships now. 

So what will it cost us to get American astronauts to the $100 billion ISS in the future?   NASA has negotiated a rate of $43 million to $63 million per astronaut on a Russian Soyuz capsule after buying about 46 seats through 2016 when the first U.S. commercial craft are expected to be available.  Given that a Shuttle launch is estimated to cost from $450 million to $1.5 billion apiece (there are many calculations out there depending on what you throw in the cost bucket), this is quite a deal for now.  For example, the last Atlantis mission carries only four astronauts, which works out to $112.5 million to $375 million per seat.  Of course, this does not include the cost of the Shuttle's primary purpose - lifting non-human payload into space. That said, considering that the cost of the entire Russian space program is estimated to be only $2 billion per year, maybe the Russians are onto something in these dire days of government funding. 

And speaking of funding, for those who thought that less money on human travel might loosen funds for more non-human missions, the James Webb space telescope offers an example of how funds may not be flowing elsewhere in NASA. The House of Representatives would like to cease funding of this $6.5 project due to cost overruns, even though billions have already been spent to date and nothing else is on the drawing board to replace the Hubble telescope when it reaches its endpoint.  Without a Shuttle to keep the Hubble in running order, NASA may soon lack a space telescope should the Jame Webb get knocked out of orbit on the Hill.  Unlike the Hubble, the James Webb space telescope will operate in an orbit outside the Earth's atmosphere, thereby offering a more accurate view of the cosmos.  If the President is serious about partnerships he should understand that a number of nations have money running on the James Webb telescope. 

Hitching rides with the Russians and now no Hubble replacement.  This is not where we need to be if we plan to be a leader in space exploration. 

More Astronomy Podcasts

Last October I wrote that a video podcast I enjoyed, This Week in Space, had run out of steam and ceased production.  Well, over time I found other podcasts that kept me abreast of events in astronomy.  Here are a few I recommend:

-- Deep Astronomy:  This video podcast is a nice collection of astronomical events delivered in a variety of ways by Tony Darnell, sometimes as a newscast referring to webpages and other times as a more elaborate narrated film.  I recently watched the piece on free-floating planets and was fascinated with the tale of hundreds of billions such planets throughout the galaxy.  You can view it on YouTube or pull it down on iTunes. 

-- Spacevidcast: Unlike Deep Astronomy, this video podcast has a number of narrators telling stories about the space program.  For instance, I recommend the video podcast on the NASA art show in Washington, DC, which I discussed in my last blog entry.  You can view these programs on YouTube or pull it down on iTunes. 

-- NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory:  This video podcast is another great way to stay on top of emerging issues, such as the new Mars rover.  This computer-generated animation of the future rover mission gives you a good idea of the complexities involved on getting to the planet's surface.  I had visions of Wall-E dancing through my head as the rover went about conducting its analysis.  Again, the videos are available on YouTube and iTunes. 

NASA's Commissioned Art

It was news to me that NASA has been contracting for art since the 1960s, including works from artists such as Andy Warhol and Annie Leibovitz.  And now these works are on display in Washington, DC, at the Air and Space Museum in an exhibit called NASA/Art: 50 Years of Exploration.  NASA has been collecting this art since 1962 and now has more than 3,000 items.  And what does each artist get for their work?  About $2,500 nowadays and the chance to add to this great national collection.  Norman Rockwell's commission was $800 back in 1965 when he provided this oil painting Grissom and Young, portraying Gemini astronauts Gus Grissom and John Young preparing for their first mission.  Go here for more of these great works.

 Sunrise Suit-up by Martin Hoffman, 1988, mixed media. 

 

Gemini Launch Pad by James Wyeth, 1964, watercolor on paper.

Russian-Chinese Trip to Mars' Moon

Russia continues to move ahead with its Phobos-Grunt mission, which involves a spacecraft landing on Phobos, studying the moon's surface for a year, and returning samples to earth.  The mission is slated to launch this December.  The ambitious project will also involve the Chinese, who plan to add a sub-probe Yinghuo 1.  This subprobe represents China's first planetary mission.  So our moon is only one of many targets for the growing Chinese space program. 

The Russian mission will also include tiny passengers.  A Scientific American article notes that The Planetary Society along with the Space Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences have created the Living Interplanetary Flight Experiment (LIFE), which will include a variety of earth organisms:

The LIFE organisms were chosen with this danger in mind. Among the four bacteria to make the trip will be radiation-resistant Deinococcus radiodurans. Tardigrades, microscopic, eight-limbed invertebrates also known as water bears, were selected for their ability to repair DNA damage. Rounding out the group are three species of archaea—sometimes called "extremophiles" for their ability to thrive in conditions too harsh for other Earth life—along with yeast, plant seeds, and a soil sample collected from Israel's Negev Desert. Most of the samples will be freeze-dried and inert for the trip, to better resist the cold of space. 

And what does The Planetary Society hope to learn from this mission?  Here is the Society's own statement: 

Will some microbes survive the brutal space environment for this long? We will have to wait and see. If no microbes survive, this does not necessarily rule out the possibility of transpermia, but it certainly calls it into question more. But if some of the organisms do make it alive to Phobos and back, then at least we would know that some life could indeed survive an interplanetary journey over a 3-year period inside a rock. 

Surprisingly, this will be the first sample returned from another planet/moon since 1976.  I remember there was a fair amount of concern about bringing back samples from our moon when it was first proposed.  However, in addition to concerns about bringing Phobos sample back to earth, some have questioned the logic of bringing life to the Martian realm. 

The Planetary Society is saying the mission complies with the Committee on Space Research of the International Council for Science planetary protection guidelines aimed at preventing the contamination of Mars by introducing terrestrial life onto the surface of Mars.  Sadly, given the track record of past missions, the chance of a spacecraft failure and crash on the surface of Phobos is not so remote. 

Russia tried a similar mission to Phobos back in 1988 to no avail.  When you add in the fact that Russia last attempt at a Mars-related mission was in 1996, and this also ended in failure, one can understand Russia's need for a flawless mission. For the sake of life (or potential life) on both planets, I hope for a flawless mission as well.

Flying to Mars on the Cheap

Robert Zubrin, president of the Mars Society, had some interesting ideas in a recent op-ed piece.  Zubrin believe SpaceX's Falcon-9 heavy rocket, in combination with its Dragon crew capsule, offers the key to returning to Mars within a decade at about half the cost of a single Space Shuttle flight.  A fascinating thought with the demise of the Shuttle program and hazy plans for the future.  Under his plan, three Falcon-9 heavy rockets would be all we need to accomplish a Mars mission:  one would place a Dragon in Mars orbit for a return trip, another would be place supplies and an ascent vehicle on the surface of Mars, and the third would carry a crew in a Dragon to the surface of Mars.  Under this scenario, the United States could have humans on the surface of Mars by 2016.  I hope someone in the White House is listening.  We need new thinking if we want to remain a space-faring people.  The possibilities are out there, so now the question is whether we will pursue them.  I can picture the Chinese eyeing the Falcon-9 heavy rockets for their own space program.

Upcoming Space Adventures

I was browsing through a magazine the other day and came across an advertisement for Space Adventures discussing plans for commercial flights to the moon.  The company noted its success in bringing the first space tourist to the International Space Station (ISS)  and the new goal of a moon mission.  While the company is not talking about a moon landing (at least not yet), it is planning to circumnavigate our moon in a Russian Soyuz spacecraft. 

In these current days of confusing messages from NASA and the White House, it is nice to learn of some firm lunar ambitions from any address in the United States.  And while the website itself says very little about the specifics of this mission, one can assume only the very wealthy need apply.  It's a start and hopefully the beginning of more such missions.  While there are many commercial reasons to look beyond the earth, I believe the spirit of adventure may remain one of the greatest drives for now and potentially the only true vehicle for getting us into space (of course, pride also works as any Cold Warrior will tell you). 

And should you prefer to stay a little closer to earth, the company is offering three seats for a 10 day trip to the ISS in 2013. 

New Homes for the Shuttles

NASA finally made its decision about the home of each shuttle.  The results are as follows:

-- Atlantis:  Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex in Orlando, Florida.

--  Discovery:  Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center in Chantilly, Virginia.

Endeavor:  California Science Center in Los Angeles, California.


-- Enterprise:  Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum in New York City.

Of course, many locations that put in a bid for an orbiter, from Chicago's Adler Planetarium to Ohio's Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, came away disappointed.  That said, there is some logic to the choices.  The nation's capitol and Florida do not need too much thought, but even New York and California make sense.  Los Angeles was the home of Rockwell International, the shuttle's primary contractor.  And the Intrepid recovered space capsules for NASA many years ago.  Of course, other bits and pieces of the shuttle program will be sent around the country, but the orbiters were what really counted.  I only hope we do not see our space program as something we put behind glass while we reminisce about the "good old days."  Instead, they should be seen as building blocks as we spend our time dreaming about future adventures.

50 Years of Human Space Travel

This week we celebrate 50 years of human space travel, with it all starting in Russia.  The April 12, 1961 flight by Yuri Gagarin on the Vostok 1 amazed the world and put the earth on a new trajectory (figuratively, I hope). 

And where have we gone in 50-year period?  Well, by 1969 an American was on the moon.  And by 1972 our manned space exploration came to an end.  So what have we been doing the past 40 years?  Sadly, other than floating around the earth, we have gone nowhere else or really set our mind on a particular location.  Even the moon seems too far for NASA's current budget. 

I know, we are thinking about Mars or an asteroid or something similar, and the United States has an amazing array of robotic craft throughout the solar system and even leaving the solar system.  Yet why is it we needed the Cold War's life and death struggle here on earth for motivation?  If the Chinese were threatening to put a death ray on the moon would that be enough to stimulate interest?  Maybe.  By the way, what are the Chinese planning to do after they land on the moon?

An Image from MESSENGER

The pictures are starting to come in from MESSENGER (see my earlier story).  The orbiting spacecraft obtained this shot of Mercury's surface on March 29th.  Here is NASA's description of the photo:

Bright rays, consisting of impact ejecta and secondary craters, spread across this NAC image and radiate from Debussy crater, located at the top. The image, acquired yesterday during the first orbit for which MDIS was imaging, shows just a small portion of Debussy's large system of rays in greater detail than ever previously seen. Images acquired during MESSENGER's second Mercury flyby showed that Debussy's rays extend for hundreds of kilometers across Mercury's surface. Debussy crater was named in March 2010, in honor of the French composer Claude Debussy (1862-1918).

You can find more photos here.

Update:  It appears water has been located on the surface of Mercury.  "One of the great ironies is that Mercury may have more ice at its poles than even our own moon," Jim Green, director of NASA's Planetary Science Division, said at a news conference in Washington.  See the whole article here.

A Stock Market on Mars?

And now to lighten things a little.  We have all read science fiction stories of civilizations on Mars, such as Ray Bradbury's Martian Chronicles, but one would presume the general population can separate fact from fiction.  Well, as I write about recent trips to distant locations, be it Mercury or Titan, maybe would need to reposition our telescopes and peer back at Mars for it appears we may have missed something. 

According to Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, who was recently speaking on World Water day, Mars may have had a thriving civilization until capitalism came along and ruined it.  Here are his words:


I have always said, heard, that it would not be strange that there had been civilization on Mars, but maybe capitalism arrived there, imperialism arrived and finished off the planet. ... Careful! Here on planet Earth where hundreds of years ago or less there were great forests, now there are deserts. Where there were rivers, there are deserts.

Notice the date of this posting.  This is not an April Fool's Day joke.  Maybe our friends in Venezuela can provide some oil money to assist NASA with its Mars mission.  More exploration is always well.  Maybe we can also solve the Face on Mars mystery.  (Yes, I know NASA tried to dismiss this with science, but that's no fun.  If fantasy will get us to Mars then we might as well go with what works.)

Something New: Rain Storms on Titan

NASA's Cassini spacecraft recently captured something fascinating on Saturn's largest moon - rain showers.  However, Titan's rain consisted of liquid methane.  While not quite the same content as rain here on earth, it still represents the first example of rain outside of our planet.  And while we did not directly see the rain, what scientists noticed was a dark spot left behind by a passing cloud.  This is about as close as we will get without actually being on the surface.  Titan is said to hold hundreds of times more hydrocarbons than earth, with methane lakes the size of our Great Lakes (though you would not want to go for a swim with temperatures at about -297°F).

Mission to Mercury

On St. Patrick's Day NASA's luck was on full display with the successful placement of the MESSENGER spacecraft into Mercury's orbit.  Launched more than 6.5 years ago, this little craft traveled more than 4.9 billion miles to get to this point.  The imaging of Mercury's surface should start on March 29th and the year-long mission will officially begin on April 4th.  The image to the left is from MESSENGER's first flyby of the planet in January 2008.

 Mercury should be a fascinating study of contrasts, with a surface temperature of 845°F and yet the possibility of frozen water at its poles.  And why does Mercury have a relatively strong magnetic field when compared to Mars?  We still have plenty to learn about this little planet.

You can follow the mission here.

The Next Discovery

With the final mission of the Discovery Space Shuttle and its 27 years of service in our space program, we are looking at mothballing a big part of recent space history.  The Discovery will soon reside at Washington DC's Smithsonian museum, where future generations can see the end of one era as we begin another.  It is only fitting that Discovery's last 13-day mission related to another big part of our remaining space program - the International Space Station.

But what other discoveries await us?  We have plenty of unmanned space missions in the future, and science in the heavens continues unabated (though the loss of the Glory satellite and Orbiting Carbon Observatory was a setback), but where next for the manned missions?  Earlier this month the Indian Space Research Organization found a nice spot for a moon base.  The underground chamber was located by the Chandrayaan-1 space probe and may offer future space inhabitants a relatively safe location near the moon's equator - safe from wide temperature variances, radiation, and other surface hazards.  One of the space-faring nations will find themselves back on the moon in the near future, and the only question is whether the United States will be a participant or observer.

Hibernation Techniques for Astonauts?

Maybe research on living in space can be done in places other than the International Space Station, such as that cave up the road.  A recent National Public Radio segment discussed the mechanics of hibernation and how the bears may have a few things to teach us if we want to travel long distances in space. 

Scientists at the University of Alaska were studying hibernating bear when they noticed that a 75 percent decrease in metabolism, slowed heart rate, and reduced breathing did not lead to a significant decrease in body temperature.  It seems body fat and heat generated through shivering was sufficient to keep the bear's body temperature at 90 degrees.  In addition, the bears did not lose bone strength over time because the body recycled waste and reused the calcium.

I am not sure if this has eliminated the need for treadmills on our trip to Mars, but a similar hibernation technique among humans could make space travel much easier and safer than we previously thought.  Something to consider on these long winter days.

NASA Has a Budget

This has not been a good year for public funding of anything, and NASA is no exception.  So in addition to a somewhat rudderless mission with the cancellation of the Constellation program, we now have to watch as a worried Congress throws everything over the side of the boat.  That said, NASA's proposed 2012 budget calls for $18.7 billion in funding to cover the ongoing Shuttle and International Space Station ($4.1 billion), science programs ($5 billion), future exploration ($3.9 billion), and other research ($0.6 billion).

What I find frustrating is how NASA's strategic plan still provides no "strategy" or vision for returning to the moon, or anywhere else for that matter, even though the first strategic goal is to "[e]xtend and sustain human activities across the solar system."  I am not sure how you do that from low earth orbit.  I understand that everything must be done in steps, but without an overarching goal in mind it is hard to get excited.

Since the Congress is still battling over the 2011 budget and trying to kill off existing programs, it is not clear whether the $18.7 billion will materialize.  And this $18.7 is the same amount as the 2010 budget, so the program is actually shrinking over time when you factor in inflation, with a fair portion of the 2012 budget shutting down programs rather than starting them up. 

Finally, the Department of Defense (DoD) is slated to get $553 billion, which includes a $22 billion increase and does not even include the $118 billion cost of maintaining two overseas wars (or whatever you chose to call them).  So remember, we are planning to spend about 36 times more money maintaining peace on earth than exploring the stars.  Just the cost of healthcare at DoD is expected to be about $53 billion, or about three times NASA's budget.  I think we can do better than this in planning for the future of humankind, but this may not be the best debate to hold this year.  Maybe our European friends can do more with their space program if they are having problems keeping up with us in the defense area, but I will not hold my breath.  China may be the only nation right now interested in building its defenses and traveling to the moon.   

Note:  The fun graphic comes from a site called The Wizard of Yo.  While it represents the 2008 budget, you get the point.

A Sad Anniversary, In Many Ways

This past week represents the 25th anniversary of the Challenger explosion, a disaster that struck at the core of the American spirit. It was Apollo 1 all over again, yet in some ways worse due to the loss of more life and because every school child was glued to the television screen to see the first teacher in space.  However, as with the Apollo program, the nation regrouped, learned from the problem, and carried on, which was the best thing to do.

Of course, only two-thirds of the Space Shuttle fleet remain, after the loss of the Columbia in 2003.  And we are in the last year of these shuttle missions until we turn to the Russians to get us back into space.  A truly ironic, if not sad, situation where we are dependent on our Cold War foe who we beat to the moon.

This past Thursday, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden laid a wreath at Arlington National Cemetery to mark NASA's National Day of Remembrance (for a tribute page, go here). President Obama also had some comments on this day, including:


Throughout history, however, we have seen that achieving great things sometimes comes at great cost and we mourn the brave astronauts who made the ultimate sacrifice in support of NASA missions throughout the agency’s storied history. We pause to reflect on the tragic loss of the Apollo 1 crew, those who boarded the space shuttle Challenger in search of a brighter future, and the brave souls who perished on the space shuttle Columbia. 

As with any exploration, lives will be lost moving mankind to new limits and opportunities.  As long as we can learn from each failure, we have a better chance to get to that next goal.  Regardless of my concerns about the recent leadership of the space program, as one looks across the globe it is clear that mankind wants to continue to move outwards and upwards.  I only hope the United States can play a big part in this continuing effort.

Moon Junk - Treasure Trove for Space Hunters

Mental Floss magazine had an interesting article in a recent issue discussing items left behind on the moon by the astronauts, including (1) a gold-plated olive branch, (2) Alan Shepard's golf balls, (3) a shrink-wrapped Polaroid of Charlie Duke's family, and (4) various other items such as moon boots and "defecation collection" devices.

After reading through the list of items, I starting thinking of what future generations or even distant visitors would find on the surface of the moon.  We know the Apollo missions left behind the lower portion of the lunar modules (see NASA map to the right).  In fact, NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter spotted five of the six landing sites in July 2009.  the LRO also spotted scientific equipment the astronauts left behind, as well as the footpath created by the astronauts using these instruments.  

We also know that various crash sites can be found on the moon (and I am not talking about Transformers 3).  For instance, as recently as October 2009 NASA crashed the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) into the moon's south pole in the hopes of stirring up some water (this satellite is associated with the LRO mentioned above).  

A review of Wikipedia's list of moon junk shows mankind has left behind about 187 tons of material.  And while the United States and the former USSR are in the lead as litterers (both left 30 spacecraft on the surface before the first man even landed), objects have also been left behind by Japan, the European Union, China, and India. 

We shall see if the Chinese beat the other nations back to the moon, but the first race was quite spectacular.  For instance, while the United States will always get the credit for the first man on the moon, the Soviets were not far behind scientifically with their Luna 16 spacecraft (shown to the right) bringing back moon samples in 1970 (following the successful return of samples on the Apollo 11 and 12 missions).  However, the Soviets stopped sending craft to the moon in 1976, while the United States and other nations continue to explore the moon's surface.

Someday we will have moon archaeologists who will recover these odd objects and probably find some new stories among the wreckage.  And earthlings are doing their best to leave junk in other parts of the solar system, as the Voyager spacecraft shoot out of our solar system and into the great unknown.  The story (and litter) has just begun.

The Beginning of the Beginning?

Earlier today Space X's  Dragon spacecraft had a very successful launch, orbit, and landing.  This is the beginning of what NASA hopes will be the private sectors' take-over of low-earth orbit so the Agency can concentrate on more distant goals, such as Mars. 

NASA needed this success.  The Agency signed a $1.6 billion contract with SpaceX, requiring the contractor to provide cargo flights to the space station using the company's Dragon capsule. Currently, SpaceX plans to fly at least 12 unmanned missions to ferry supplies to the International Space Station.

It was interesting hearing Florida's Senator Bill Nelson earlier today make the following statement:  "We've arrived at the dawn of new era of U.S. space exploration that should ensure America remains a leader.

The last time I heard from him on NASA, he was trying to resurrect the shuttle program and spouting off conservative, go-slow statements to NASA like "walk before you run." I guess he has seen the light (or the dawn) as well as a good photo op.   

If this is our future, then we are off to a pretty good start.  I am not sure if this Congress (or the next one) has the stomach to fully fund our space initiatives.  We are better at pounding sand in the Middle East as compared to sifting sand on distant moons and planets.  But maybe we too will see the light one of these days.  On this planet, sadly there is nothing new under the sun (just read the papers from 10 years ago).  Fortunately, out in space there are a lot of new things under our sun, and I hope we get a chance to explore those areas soon.

Quite a Week for Space Gawkers

It was certainly a fascinating week in terms of life on other planets and even life in other universes.  In terms of the first item, NASA announced last week that they located bacteria in California's Mono Lake that has a basic genetic structure that incorporates arsenic.  It was a surprise that life could exist with such chemistry, and caused many to wonder whether our definition of life has been too limited up to this point. 

"The definition of life has just expanded," said Ed Weiler, NASA's associate administrator for the Science Mission Directorate at the agency's Headquarters in Washington. "As we pursue our efforts to seek signs of life in the solar system, we have to think more broadly, more diversely and consider life as we do not know it." 

According to NASA, Mono Lake was selected for study due to its unusual chemistry, especially its high salinity, high alkalinity, and high levels of arsenic. Mono Lake has been from sources of fresh water for 50 years.

Another fascinating story in the New York Times related to a new take on the Big Bang.  Maybe it was really the Big Gasp.  British mathematician Roger Penrose believes evidence exists that two super-large black holes collided prior the Big Bang.  According to the New York Times, this challenges the current hypothesis that nothing existed before the Big Bang.  Of course, I am pretty sure that this could fit into other theories.  For instance, arguments have been going on for years as to whether the universe will continue to expand outwards and die a cold death like embers in the abandoned campfire, or will eventually collapse back onto itself due to gravity and start the process all over again. Could this be that echo?

I should also add that this theory does not appear to be a breaking story, though it may have rolled across the newpaper's desk just recently.  For instance, Australia was reporting on this more than three years ago.  And the idea itself was presented by Professor Penrose in 2005 - here is the lecture.  Is this also an echo?

And while the story was not all that clear in the recent article, a little more review of this matter indicates the theory relies on black holes basically cannibalizing the entire universe to the point that it resets itself.  To me at least, that is even more fascinating than a universe collapsing onto itself. 

Whatever the case, I find it all amazing to read about.  While I love to read science fiction for the pure enjoyment of new ideas, the regular scientific papers are doing their part to keep this strange universe of ours endlessly enchanting.

December 7 Update:  Not everyone is happy with NASA's announcement of arsenic-based life.   Take a look at Slate's article "This Paper Should Not Have Been Published."