Feb 21 2007
From The Space Library
NASA announced a landmark achievement of its Spitzer Space Telescope (SST). For the first time the SST had captured enough light from exoplanets—planets outside Earth’s solar system— to identify molecular signatures in their atmospheres. NASA described the event as a significant step toward achieving the ability to detect life on rocky exoplanets. Using a spectrograph to reveal the “fingerprints” of the objects’ chemical composition, the space-based infrared SST had obtained the data from two different gaseous exoplanets—HD 189733b, located 63 light-years from Earth in the constellation Vulpecula, and HD 209458b, located 150 light-years away in the constellation Pegasus. The telescope had monitored the planets as they transited behind their stars and temporarily disappeared from view. Once the exoplanets were no longer visible, Spitzer’s spectrograph measured the dip in infrared light. The data collected through this method, known as the secondary-eclipse technique, indicated that the two planets—known as “hot Jupiters,” because they are gaseous like Jupiter, but orbit much closer to their stars—are drier and cloudier than scientists had previously predicted. Although scientists had predicted that water vapor would prove a common feature of the atmospheres of hot Jupiters, the SST found no evidence of water vapor on either HD189733b or HD 209458b.
NASA, “NASA’s Spitzer First To Crack Open Light of Far Away Worlds,” news release 07-48, 21 February 2007, http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2007/feb/HQ_0748_Spitzer.html (accessed 14 October 2009); Eric Berger, “Another Step Closer To Finding a Planet Like Ours,” Houston Chronicle, 22 February 2007.
SPACEHAB announced that it had filed for a formal dismissal, with prejudice, of all litigation against NASA relating to losses incurred because of the Space Shuttle Columbia accident in 2003. SPACEHAB stated that the potential benefits of continuing litigation no longer the benefits of the case’s dismissal. At the time of the Columbia accident, NASA had been SPACEHAB’s largest customer. SPACEHAB had initiated a contract claim against NASA in January 2004, seeking US$87.7 million in damages for the loss of its Research Double Module (RDM). Claiming that its liability was limited under the contract, NASA had paid SPACEHAB US$8.2 million, including interest, in October 2004. SPACEHAB had filed an appeal with the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, and the two parties had proceeded with preparations for a hearing, which the court had scheduled for July 2008. SPACEHAB had also filed a tort claim in November 2004, seeking US$79.7 million in additional damages, but the court had granted a motion in June 2006 to stay the case until resolution of the contract claim appeal. Dismissal of the claim required SPACEHAB to pay US$500,000 to Lloyd’s of London, the RDM insurer.
SPACEHAB, “SPACEHAB Dismisses RDM Claim with NASA,” news release, 21 February 2007, http://www.spacehab.com/news-and-events/news/spacehab-dismisses-rdm-claim-with-nasa (accessed 13 January 2010); Houston Business Journal, “Spacehab Drops Suit Against NASA,” 21 February 2007.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
