Using data from the Kepler spacecraft, scientists have confirmed the discovery of a multi-planet system in the constellation Lyra about 2,000 light years away, made up of at least two gas-giants similar to Saturn in size and mass. The results, which increase the mission’s confirmed planet count to seven since its launch in March 2009, were announced by the Kepler team in a teleconference held today.

William Borucki, Kepler Mission Science Principal Investigator, explained that “instead of taking pictures, [Kepler] measures the brightness of stars,” variations of which are used by scientists to determine characteristics such as the orbital period, mass, and size of the planets that cross or transit them. Matthew Holman, Associate Director of the Theoretical Astrophysics Division at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said that using a technique called “transit timing variations” the team was able to utilize data collected over several months to study successive transits of the planets – Kepler 9B and Kepler 9C – and to analyze the gravitational interaction between them. By studying how the gravity of a planet affects the orbits of others, this technique, which Holman and a group of scientists first proposed in 2005, has now been proven to work as a tool to confirm the presence of planets.

But transit timing variation, which Borucki described as a “new, impressive,” and “important” technique, does much more than just find them. Alycia Weinberger of the Department of Terrestrial Magnetism at the Carnegie Institution of Washington explained that studying the way planets “tug at each other,” which causes those transit variations, can even help teach us about how planets form and how they “migrate” into their particular configuration, a study which may provide clues as to the likelihood of low-mass, Earth-sized planets in other systems. “How a planetary system looks today has a lot to tell us about how it formed,” she added.

The “super-Earth” category planet apparently orbiting the same star may have already been found in this same system, but work is ongoing to confirm this. With an orbital period of 1.6 days, this object would be the smallest planet to be observed in transit. As they keep hard at work to rule out “astrophysical false positives” regarding this third object, the team remains hopeful that this is just the beginning for a mission they expect will yield new exciting discoveries in the years to come.

UPDATE: A link to Dr. Williamson’s presentation has been added.

Everyone needs to look “at the entire disaster cycle” and communities need “to understand the risks they take” according to experts who met at a July 8 National Research Council (NRC) workshop on how to better use remote sensing data in disaster response and recovery. A SpacePolicyOnline.com summary of the meeting is available on our website.

Stuart Gill of the World Bank and Ray Williamson from the Secure World Foundation emphasized those points during a panel discussion at the workshop. Gill added that “a top-down modeling exercise” combined with “bottom-up community risk mapping” is needed to get people involved in understanding their environments and attendant risks.

Panel participants believed the biggest impediment to better use of remote sensing data to deal with disasters when they happen, or perhaps to avoid them, is policy development. Jack Harrald, chair of the NRC’s Disasters Roundtable, which sponsored the workshop, concluded that there is a “profound leadership challenge” to develop and implement a vision for 2020. The topic of the workshop was “From Reality 2010 to Vision 2020: Translating Remotely Sensed Data to Assets, Exposure, Damage, and Losses.”

Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the Moon and commander of the Apollo 11 mission that took him there, said he found “mystifying” comments made by President Obama on April 15 that there is no need to go back to the Moon because “we’ve already been there.” During the second part of Wednesday’s House Science and Technology Committee hearing on the President’s plan for NASA’s human spaceflight program, Mr. Armstrong was accompanied by Captain Eugene Cernan, the last man to walk on the Moon, and Mr. A. Thomas Young, Lockheed Martin (Ret.). All three had previously testified against the Obama plan, and they did so again.

In his statement, Mr. Armstrong wondered what effect a similar attitude would have had on revisiting places like the New World or west of the Mississippi, stressing that there is “much to be learned on the Moon.” It offers “many of the challenges” in flying beyond low Earth orbit, but is close enough for a fast trip back to Earth in case of an emergency, being only three days away. Returning to the Moon is part of the three priorities Armstrong believes should guide NASA’s human spaceflight plans:

• Maintaining American leadership in space
• Guaranteeing access to space, and
• Pursuing exploration

Captain Cernan criticized the FY2011 budget request for not allocating “one penny…to support [human] space exploration,” and focusing instead on technology development. He called it “a blueprint for a mission to ‘nowhere.'” He is skeptical that the technology investments will result in any “game-changing,” arguing that the investment made in the Ares I/Orion system should continue and the shuttle should keep flying until that system is available. He agrees that the long term goal of human spaceflight should be Mars and that a date for achieving that goal is not important as long as the program moves in that direction, but apparently disagrees on the intermediate steps. He argues that as Ares I/Orion evolves, “that’s when we decide the exploration plan to follow.” Interestingly, his comments sounded similar to the original Obama plan that did not include timelines or destinations.

Mr. Young restated his opposition to the commercial crew option because he does not believe industry can conduct such a program by itself. As a veteran of both government and industry jobs, he is adamant that the two must work together, with government bringing its continuity of experience and industry providing the implementation capability. He described the success of the recent test of the Orion launch abort system as “the best of NASA” and “the best of industry” working together. He believes that industry alone, lacking NASA’s continuity of expertise, will probably fail in its attempt to develop commercial crew vehicles. The panel agreed that following the commercial crew route would result in an “atrophying” of the aerospace workforce and lead to the United States abdicating both its only crew access to space and, consequently, its leadership in this field with negative national security implications.

To a direct question over whether they believed the President’s plan to be executable, Mr. Young said “no,” Captain Cernan said “absolutely not,” and Mr. Armstrong said it would be “highly unlikely.”

When asked about his opinion of the Augustine Committee Report, Mr. Armstrong said he believed it to be “very good,” but he thought the conclusion that Constellation was “unexecutable” was based on the FY2010 budget, which he said was substantially smaller than either the FY2009 or FY2011 budgets. He suggested that if “the ground rules had been different, their findings would have been different,” adding that he believed this was a “built-in barrier to making … an equitable judgment.”

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), the only vocal advocate of President Obama’s plan on the committee, expressed his admiration for the panel of witnesses, but asked committee chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN) if there could be another hearing at which witnesses in favor of the plan would have an opportunity to present their views. Rep. Gordon reminded Rep. Rohrabacher that NASA Administrator Bolden had just testified to the committee for more than two hours, but also said that this would not be the last hearing before the committee puts forward a NASA authorization bill.

Key players in implementing President Obama’s plan to turn human spaceflight over to the commercial sector met Thursday to discuss human rating requirements for commercial crew space vehicles during a roundtable hosted by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). The first phase of a much needed debate to push forward the process that would allow NASA astronauts and – in the future – ordinary people to board commercial space vehicles centered on a variety of complex issues. In the end, there appeared to be consensus on at least one thing: safety is the first priority.

Bryan O’Connor, former astronaut and Chief of Safety and Mission Assurance at NASA, said that while the government would strive not to over-regulate, existing law like the 2005 NASA Authorization Act, which requires a presidential commission to investigate accidents, reminds government of its “responsibility of not backing up too much.” He explained that NASA’s role in promoting safety will begin with the upcoming release of a Request for Information (RFI) on NASA’s draft human rating requirements. Mr. O’Connor said they reflected NASA’s first take at the safety requirements the agency itself would look to address if it were in the commercial companies’ shoes. Feedback from potential contractors will initiate a discussion on steps to integrate and adapt these requirements into the commercial systems now under development. He likened the process to what NASA went through to determine that astronauts could safely fly on Russia’s Soyuz launch vehicle — not strict compliance, but equivalence.

The “safety first” philosophy also reflects the necessity that safety requirements be integrated early in the design process because retrofitting them into an existing system is almost impossible. According to Ken Bowersox, another former astronaut and Vice President of Astronaut Safety and Mission Assurance Development at SpaceX, his company jumpstarted the human rating requirement process by looking at NASA’s internal requirements, as well as previous and existing crew transportation vehicles – such as the Apollo and the Soyuz – for the early design of the Falcon 9 and its Dragon spacecraft. The company hopes that this strategy will help it adapt and respond to NASA’s safety requirements more easily.

Adaptation is key, since history has demonstrated that strict compliance is not necessarily the best or safest option. Mr. O’Connor reiterated what he sees as the wisdom of following NASA’s “Soyuz thinking” of not trying to force a redesign on the differences between Soyuz and NASA’s own way of doing things. The questions become: Is this system acceptable? Is this issue a showstopper? Or is it an acceptable risk?

Another theme of the discussion was that risk and safety are not at opposite ends of the spectrum. “Safety is not an absolute,” cautioned Dr. George Nield, Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation at the Federal Aviation Administration. “All transportation involves risks,” he added, explaining that even a vehicle built completely by NASA should not be assumed to be safe and, least of all, risk-free. The need is to “understand and accept those risks before you fly,” a process that will require dialogue within the community to come up with a consensus on standards, practices, and principles.

The debate will continue as stakeholders look for common ground in what Ken Reightler, Senior Vice President of Lockheed Martin Space Operations and another former astronaut, described as the “philosophy” or “mind-set” of safety. Mr. O’Connor explained that one often unspoken and perhaps misunderstood assumption of people involved in spaceflight is that the mission and the safety of the people carrying it out are not in competition, but go hand in hand. He said he fears that when the public hears debates like this one with an emphasis on safety, “people think we’re saying that [safety] is our mission,” but the only way to be completely safe is for people to not fly into space, and no one is suggesting that. He joked that the way he likes to think about it is that “safety is the remora fish in the shark of exploration,” a reference to the symbiotic relationship between remora fish that attach themselves to and eat parasites off of sharks, benefitting both.