- Email: [email protected]
A handful of stardust
New Science Publications
Editorial–
Editor Jeremy Webb Personal Asst & Office Manager Anita Staff Associate Editors Liz Else, Stephanie Pain News Editor Matt Walker Editors Linda Geddes, Rowan Hooper, Anil Ananthaswamy, Helen Knight Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1210 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 Reporters LONDON Andy Coghlan, Hazel Muir, Paul Marks, Zeeya Merali [email protected] BOSTON US Bureau Chief Ivan Semeniuk David L. Chandler [email protected] Celeste Biever [email protected] Gregory T. Huang [email protected] SAN FRANCISCO Bureau Chief Peter Aldhous [email protected] TORONTO Alison Motluk [email protected] BRUSSELS Debora MacKenzie [email protected] MELBOURNE Australasian Editor Rachel Nowak [email protected] Features Editors Ben Crystall, Kate Douglas, Clare Wilson, David Cohen, Graham Lawton, Valerie Jamieson, Michael Le Page, Caroline Williams Features Assistant Celia Guthrie Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1230 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 [email protected] Opinion Senior Editor Michael Bond Editors John Hoyland, Amanda Gefter, Alison George Opinion Coordinator Eleanor Case Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1240 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 [email protected] Researcher Lucy Middleton Editorial Assistant Nick Christensen Production Editor Mick O’Hare Asst Production Editor Melanie Green Chief Sub John Liebmann Subeditors Vivienne Greig, Ben Longstaff, Julia Brown, Barbara Kiser Art Editor Alison Lawn Design Craig Mackie, David Knight, Michelle Ofosu Graphics Nigel Hawtin, Dave Johnston Pictures Adam Goff, Ludivine Morel Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1268 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1250 Careers Editor Richard Fisher [email protected] Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1248 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 Consultants Alun Anderson, Barry Fox, Stephen Battersby, Marcus Chown, Michael Brooks, Fred Pearce, Rob Edwards, Mick Hamer, Justin Mullins, Ian Stewart, Gail Vines, Jeff Hecht, Helen Phillips, Gabrielle Walker, Richard Fifield, Bob Holmes, Emma Young Press Office UK Claire Bowles Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1210 Fax 7611 1280 US Office Tel +1 617 386 2190 NEWSCIENTIST.COM Online Publisher John MacFarlane Online Editor Damian Carrington Deputy Online Editor Shaoni Bhattacharya, Gaia Vince Editors Maggie McKee, Will Knight Reporters Tom Simonite, Roxanne Khamsi, Kelly Young, David Shiga, Catherine Brahic [email protected] Special Reports Editor John Pickrell Online Subeditor Sean O’Neill Web team Neela Das, Ashis Joshi, Michael Suzuki, Cathy Tollet, Ruth Turner, Vivienne Griffith, Rohan Creasey
www.newscientist.com
A handful of stardust If you want to understand the solar system, go and get a piece of it ON 15 January 2006, an artificial meteorite lit up the night sky. The returning Stardust probe brought to Earth a thousand grains of dust from comet Wild 2. Those grains are challenging our ideas about the origins of comets, life and planets. Seven papers in the latest issue of Science detail the work of nearly 200 researchers in analysing the samples. Among their findings are discoveries of a rich stock of organic compounds, including two that contain biologically usable nitrogen. These bolster the idea that comets could have played a role in the emergence of life on Earth. The biggest revelation is that the comet is not made entirely of material from the outer solar system. The sample contains minerals that form only at very high temperatures, which suggests that they were melted by the sun and ejected. This has big implications for our ideas of how the solar system formed. It was previously assumed that planets developed by amassing material only from their “local” area. Now it seems matter might come from much farther afield. And how did these particles stray so far from the sun? Astronomers are once more discussing the “X-wind” – hypothetical jets thrown outwards by the rotating cloud of dust and gas that created the sun. None of this could have come from telescopic studies. The complexity of the minerals would render spectroscopic
detection virtually impossible. Even the Deep Impact mission, which fired a missile at comet Tempel 1 and analysed the ejecta, did not have the equipment for the tests done on Wild 2. Ever since the Apollo 15 mission to the moon in 1971, when astronaut David Scott picked up one of the oldest rocks in existence, we have known that sample-return missions are in a class of their own. Stardust reinforces their significance. The next samples planetary scientists and astrobiologists would like to study are rocks from Mars. Despite that desire, NASA has steadily pushed back its planned sample-return mission to the Red Planet. True, these missions are costly and high-risk. The Japanese Hayabusa probe is returning to Earth after landing on asteroid Itokawa, but technical failures mean nobody knows what it has collected. NASA’s Genesis mission to bring samples of the sun’s outer atmosphere to Earth smashed into the Utah desert. A similar crash by a Mars probe, which might contain alien microorganisms, could spell ecological disaster. This is one reason why NASA is soft-pedalling. Stardust shows that sample returns can deliver pivotal science and be safe. Just as Genesis damaged the prospect of a Martian sample-return mission, so Stardust should reinvigorate it. The huge advances it could yield should spur the search for better ways to bring samples back safely. NASA should make that work a priority, not delay it. ●
Facing the wrong way on climate change THE great white north is disappearing. Projections presented this month to the American Geophysical Union suggest that by 2040 the Arctic Ocean will be largely icefree in summer. If current trends continue, the Earth’s northern regions will be utterly transformed in less than two generations. For polar bears, the habitat they rely on is collapsing; for the indigenous people, so is a way of life. If there is one nation that should be acutely aware of how damaging climate change could be it is Canada. Its northern wilderness has been romanticised in literature, has inspired great art, and remains a treasured element in the national character. Yet instead of
leading the charge to halt global warming, the Canadian government led by Stephen Harper is retreating. Though Canada ratified the Kyoto protocol, the government has proved unable to meet its Kyoto targets and now says it will not try (see page 6). At last month’s UN climate change conference in Nairobi, Canada reaffirmed its commitment to Kyoto, leaving many people wondering what it means to be committed to the protocol but not its targets. On climate, the government appears to be philosophically allied with the Bush White House to the south. For the benefit of his country and the world, it is time Harper turned around and checked what is happening to the north. ● 23/30 December 2006 | NewScientist | 3
Editorial–
Editor Jeremy Webb Personal Asst & Office Manager Anita Staff Associate Editors Liz Else, Stephanie Pain News Editor Matt Walker Editors Linda Geddes, Rowan Hooper, Anil Ananthaswamy, Helen Knight Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1210 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 Reporters LONDON Andy Coghlan, Hazel Muir, Paul Marks, Zeeya Merali [email protected] BOSTON US Bureau Chief Ivan Semeniuk David L. Chandler [email protected] Celeste Biever [email protected] Gregory T. Huang [email protected] SAN FRANCISCO Bureau Chief Peter Aldhous [email protected] TORONTO Alison Motluk [email protected] BRUSSELS Debora MacKenzie [email protected] MELBOURNE Australasian Editor Rachel Nowak [email protected] Features Editors Ben Crystall, Kate Douglas, Clare Wilson, David Cohen, Graham Lawton, Valerie Jamieson, Michael Le Page, Caroline Williams Features Assistant Celia Guthrie Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1230 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 [email protected] Opinion Senior Editor Michael Bond Editors John Hoyland, Amanda Gefter, Alison George Opinion Coordinator Eleanor Case Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1240 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 [email protected] Researcher Lucy Middleton Editorial Assistant Nick Christensen Production Editor Mick O’Hare Asst Production Editor Melanie Green Chief Sub John Liebmann Subeditors Vivienne Greig, Ben Longstaff, Julia Brown, Barbara Kiser Art Editor Alison Lawn Design Craig Mackie, David Knight, Michelle Ofosu Graphics Nigel Hawtin, Dave Johnston Pictures Adam Goff, Ludivine Morel Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1268 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1250 Careers Editor Richard Fisher [email protected] Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1248 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 Consultants Alun Anderson, Barry Fox, Stephen Battersby, Marcus Chown, Michael Brooks, Fred Pearce, Rob Edwards, Mick Hamer, Justin Mullins, Ian Stewart, Gail Vines, Jeff Hecht, Helen Phillips, Gabrielle Walker, Richard Fifield, Bob Holmes, Emma Young Press Office UK Claire Bowles Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1210 Fax 7611 1280 US Office Tel +1 617 386 2190 NEWSCIENTIST.COM Online Publisher John MacFarlane Online Editor Damian Carrington Deputy Online Editor Shaoni Bhattacharya, Gaia Vince Editors Maggie McKee, Will Knight Reporters Tom Simonite, Roxanne Khamsi, Kelly Young, David Shiga, Catherine Brahic [email protected] Special Reports Editor John Pickrell Online Subeditor Sean O’Neill Web team Neela Das, Ashis Joshi, Michael Suzuki, Cathy Tollet, Ruth Turner, Vivienne Griffith, Rohan Creasey
www.newscientist.com
A handful of stardust If you want to understand the solar system, go and get a piece of it ON 15 January 2006, an artificial meteorite lit up the night sky. The returning Stardust probe brought to Earth a thousand grains of dust from comet Wild 2. Those grains are challenging our ideas about the origins of comets, life and planets. Seven papers in the latest issue of Science detail the work of nearly 200 researchers in analysing the samples. Among their findings are discoveries of a rich stock of organic compounds, including two that contain biologically usable nitrogen. These bolster the idea that comets could have played a role in the emergence of life on Earth. The biggest revelation is that the comet is not made entirely of material from the outer solar system. The sample contains minerals that form only at very high temperatures, which suggests that they were melted by the sun and ejected. This has big implications for our ideas of how the solar system formed. It was previously assumed that planets developed by amassing material only from their “local” area. Now it seems matter might come from much farther afield. And how did these particles stray so far from the sun? Astronomers are once more discussing the “X-wind” – hypothetical jets thrown outwards by the rotating cloud of dust and gas that created the sun. None of this could have come from telescopic studies. The complexity of the minerals would render spectroscopic
detection virtually impossible. Even the Deep Impact mission, which fired a missile at comet Tempel 1 and analysed the ejecta, did not have the equipment for the tests done on Wild 2. Ever since the Apollo 15 mission to the moon in 1971, when astronaut David Scott picked up one of the oldest rocks in existence, we have known that sample-return missions are in a class of their own. Stardust reinforces their significance. The next samples planetary scientists and astrobiologists would like to study are rocks from Mars. Despite that desire, NASA has steadily pushed back its planned sample-return mission to the Red Planet. True, these missions are costly and high-risk. The Japanese Hayabusa probe is returning to Earth after landing on asteroid Itokawa, but technical failures mean nobody knows what it has collected. NASA’s Genesis mission to bring samples of the sun’s outer atmosphere to Earth smashed into the Utah desert. A similar crash by a Mars probe, which might contain alien microorganisms, could spell ecological disaster. This is one reason why NASA is soft-pedalling. Stardust shows that sample returns can deliver pivotal science and be safe. Just as Genesis damaged the prospect of a Martian sample-return mission, so Stardust should reinvigorate it. The huge advances it could yield should spur the search for better ways to bring samples back safely. NASA should make that work a priority, not delay it. ●
Facing the wrong way on climate change THE great white north is disappearing. Projections presented this month to the American Geophysical Union suggest that by 2040 the Arctic Ocean will be largely icefree in summer. If current trends continue, the Earth’s northern regions will be utterly transformed in less than two generations. For polar bears, the habitat they rely on is collapsing; for the indigenous people, so is a way of life. If there is one nation that should be acutely aware of how damaging climate change could be it is Canada. Its northern wilderness has been romanticised in literature, has inspired great art, and remains a treasured element in the national character. Yet instead of
leading the charge to halt global warming, the Canadian government led by Stephen Harper is retreating. Though Canada ratified the Kyoto protocol, the government has proved unable to meet its Kyoto targets and now says it will not try (see page 6). At last month’s UN climate change conference in Nairobi, Canada reaffirmed its commitment to Kyoto, leaving many people wondering what it means to be committed to the protocol but not its targets. On climate, the government appears to be philosophically allied with the Bush White House to the south. For the benefit of his country and the world, it is time Harper turned around and checked what is happening to the north. ● 23/30 December 2006 | NewScientist | 3